Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (MARCONI AND VICKERS LOANS).

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the action which the British Minister in Peking has taken during his three years' tenure of office to press the Chinese Government in respect of the payment to British shareholders of the unpaid interest on the Marconi and Vickers Eight Per Cent. Loans?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS(Mr. Austen Chamberlain): His Majesty's Minister at Peking has made repeated representations to the Chinese Government on this subject. To the last of these the Chinese Government replied regretting that they had no funds to meet these obligations, Which is no doubt the case, as it is notorious that they have been for some tune past in a state of bankruptcy, chiefly owing to the appropriation of the national revenues by the provincial and military governors and factions. In these circumstances I fear that it would be useless to urge them to make good the default at the present juncture, though His
Majesty's Minister will of course press the matter whenever a favourable opportunity occurs.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY).

Mr.PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information that the Swedish Government has placed the question of the nationality of married women before the legal committee of the League of Nations; and whether, in view of the recent decision of this House, he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no legal committee of the League of Nations. I presume the hon. Member is referring to the committee appointed by the last Assembly of the League of Nations to consider the codification of international law. I can make no statement on the proceedings of that committee until I have received a report from the British member.

MINORITIES (GREECE AND BULGARIA).

Mr. RILEY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any reply has been received from the Greek Government by the League of Nations with reference to the communication sent by the League to the Greek Government in March of this year regarding the settlement of minorities in Greece and Bulgaria; and, if so, can he give the nature of the reply?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply is in the negative.

ARMS TRAFFIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. PONSONBY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House of the names of the British delegation to the Arms Traffic Conference which is to be held at Geneva this month; and whether the delegation will be instructed to support the Draft Arms Traffic Convention as proposed by the Temporary Mixed Commission?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The British delegate to the Arms Traffic Conference is the Under-Secretary of State for War. He has been instructed to propose a number of amendments to the draft Arms Traffic Convention drawn up by the Temporary Mixed Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (DISPOSAL OFINDEMNITY).

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the disposal of the balance of the indemnity of £500,000 paid by Egypt rests with the British Government or the Sudan Government; and what portion of it will be allotted to the dependants of British soldiers who were killed in the mutiny which followed the murder of Sir Lee Stack?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The disposal of the indemnity rests with His Majesty's Government, whose decision will be based upon the recommendations of the Governor-General of the Sudan, and, as I informed the House on the 11th of February last, will only be taken after consultation with the Leaders of the Opposition parties. I would remind my hon. Friend that the application of the indemnity is confined to benevolent objects in the Sudan. It would not be available for the purposes suggested.

Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the handing over of a portion of the indemnity fund to those who suffered from this series of attacks would he among the objects to which it may be devoted?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. The purpose to which this fine of £500,000 was to be devoted was stated at the time by His Majesty's Government, and we cannot vary it when appropriating the amount.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SOVIET MISSION (DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY).

Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM BULLER: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of Russian subjects in this country recognised as attached in any way to the Soviet diplomatic mission; and how this number compared with the recognised staffs of other diplomatic missions in this country?

Colonel GRETTON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many persons connected with the Russian trade delegations in this country have been given diplomatic status by the British Government; if there is any limitation of the number of persons so privileged; and, if so, will he say what is such limitation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of persons on the staff of the Soviet Mission in this country who enjoy diplomatic immunity is four; the Soviet Charge d'Affaires is treated in the same manner as other duly accredited diplomatic representatives, who are allowed diplomatic immunity for a staff sufficient to enable them to carry out their duties adequately. The diplomatic staffs of other foreign missions vary in number between one (in the case of some of the smaller countries) and 24.

BRITISH-OWNED PROPERTY.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has made protests to any foreign Government. whose subjects are buying the produce of British-owned property in Russia, in view of the fact that such purchases are a breach of the resolution passed at the Hague Conference in July, 1922?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. Apart from any other consideration, if the hon. Member will look at the terms of the resolution to which he refers, he will see that it affords no grounds for such a protest.

BRITISH CLAIMS.

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 74
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many British companies, firms, and individuals who have claims against the Soviet Government in respect of nationalised property have exhausted their resources during seven years of waiting, and have either become insolvent or are likely to become insolvent; and whether he can recommend that assistance be given to them to maintain their claims, having regard to the magnitude of British claims against Russia?

Sir B CHADWICK: Yes, Sir, I realise the extent to which certain classes of creditors of Russia have suffered as a result of the failure of the Soviet Government to meet its obligations. I regret, however, that. I cannot suggest any other method by which claimants can at the moment maintain their claims, than by recording them with the Russian Claims Department.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is it not possible even now to try to enter into negotiations whereby some of these claimants may get some of their dues?

Mr. ROY WILSON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any conversations have recently taken place between His Majesty's Government and the representatives of the Soviet Government with the object of obtaining a settlement of the claims of British nationals in respect of property confiscated from them and Russian loans held by them which have been repudiated; and if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to re-open negotiations with a view to obtaining a settlement of British claims against Russia which have been outstanding for the past seven years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on the 11th March to the hon. Member for Brightside and to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA (RECONSTRUCTION BONDS).

Mr. PONSONBY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has been concluded between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Rumania for the repayment over a term of years of the relief and reconstruction bonds owing to Great Britain and the Dominions; and, if so, whether he will give the terms of the agreement?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): His Majesty's Government and the Commonwealth of Australia have agreed to accept repayment of the amounts of £2,200,000 and £120,000 due to them respectively under the Rumanian relief bonds which matured on the 1st January, 1925, by capital instalments spread over a period of 15 years commencing in 1930, with interest at 5 per cent. as from 1st January, 1925, on the amount from time to time outstanding.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMBASSY, UNITED STATES.

CaptainCROOKSHANK: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to move the British Embassy from Washington this summer;
if so, where will it be located and what is the estimated cost chargeable to public funds; and whether, before reaching a final decision, he will consider the expenditure of this sum from public funds in grants to enable the members of the embassy staff in turn to travel in the United States in order further to study political and commercial conditions rather than in removing the embassy for a considerable period from the seat of the United States Government?

Mr.CHAMBERLAIN: It has been decided to move the embassy for the summer to Manchester, Massachusetts; the cost chargeable to public funds will be the same as in 1924, namely, £1,100 at par of exchange. With regard to the last part of the question, the move is considered desirable in the interests of the health and efficiency of the staff and is in accordance with the usual practice before the War. it was only discontinued during, and for a few years after, the War owing to the pressure of work at the embassy. If the hon. and gallant Member had spent a complete summer in Washington, lie would, I feel sure, appreciate the advantages of the arrangement. I am prepared at any time to authorise journeys by members of the staff for the purpose referred to in the question, if good cause for them is shown by His Majesty's Ambassador.

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTENEGRO.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he receives regular reports of conditions in Montenegro from the British Vice-Consul at Cettinje; and whether he can say briefly what the state of the country is now?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The British Vice-Consul reports to me whenever there are matters of sufficient interest to warrant his so doing. Very few reports have been received lately and we may, therefore, assume that conditions in Montenegro are normal.

Lieut.CommanderKENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman no more exact information than the negative information that because no reports have been received everything must be all right and satisfactory?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the Vice-Consul has nothing to report, he does not report.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inquire what is the state of affairs in this country, and may I repeat the question in a fortnight?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I may receive a further Report from the Vice-Consul in the meantime, but I rather deprecate being requested to ask for a report without a prima facie case for making inquiries being submitted to me. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman cares to write to me privately and explain the reasons why he asks for a report, I will consider the matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Of course I will do that, but surely the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that very grave charges have been made about fee state of affairs in that country, and that, as we are signatures to the Treaty handing over the country to Serbia, we are entitled to get some information?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will send me the grounds for his request, and state what is the information which he wants, I will consider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GERMANY (DISARMAMENT).

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to inform the German Government of the matters in which it is in default under the disarmament clauses of the Treaty?

Mr. MACKINDER: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is the intention of the Allies to present Germany with a statement of her defaults under the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of Versailles?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I trust that the Allies will very shortly be in a position to present a Note on this subject to the German Government, although I can give no indication of the exact date.

Captain BENN: Will it be accompanied by a statement showing details of matters in which Germany is in default?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly. We hope that this Note will be presented very quickly, and made available as soon as it is presented.

Mr. PONSONBY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of the reason for the very long delay?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Various circumstances have combined. A matter of that kind required considerable attention. I think that I must plead guilty myself to responsibility for some part of the delay. The last meeting of Ambassadors could not consider the matter, because our representative had not received his instructions from me.

DANZIG CORRIDOR (GERMAN TRAINS).

Mr. FENBY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Regulations made under Articles 89 and 98 of the Treaty of Versailles come in any way under the control of the Council of Ambassadors; whether it is under the terms of these Articles that the carriage doors of German trains passing through the Polish Corridor are locked; and whether his attention has been called to the recent railway disaster in the Corridor and to other previous disasters in the same neighbourhood?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to parts one and two of the question I would explain that Articles 89 and 98 of the Treaty of Versailles, in common with other Articles of the Treaty in general, come under the supervision of the Conference of Ambassadors. In accordance with Article 98, Germany on the one part and Poland and the Free City of Danzig on the other, signed on the 21st April, 1921, a convention concerning freedom of transit between Eastern Prussian and the rest of Germany. It is provided by Article 11 of this convention that difficulties of interpretation may be submitted to a permanent arbitral tribunal sitting at Danzig. Article 4 of the convention would appear to provide for the exemption from Customs and passport examination of travellers on so-called privileged trains, the means of ensuring this (e.g. by the locking of doors) being presumably in the hands of the authorities operating the railway. The reply to part three of the question is in the affirmative.

Captain BENN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is very undesirable
that trains should be run through the Polish Corridor with doors locked, and that very serious increase of danger is caused; this, especially in view of the three accidents which have taken place already?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The people who are concerned have to reconcile conflicting objects. The object of the locked door is to facilitate travel from one part of Germany to another without Polish Customs officials' examination. I think any proposals for change if such be necessary might well be left to those immediately concerned.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Englishmen travel in these trains sometimes.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN EMBASSIES (STAFFS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total number of persons employed in the Russian Soviet Embassy in London and by the Russian trade delegation: and what are the total numbers of the staffs employed by the French, German, Italian and American diplomatic representatives?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Poplar on the 10th February and to the hon. Member for Holborn on the 2nd March. As regards the second part, if the clerical and domestic staffs are to be included as well as the diplomatic staff, the total numbers of persons attached to foreign missions and therefore officially notified to His Majesty's Government as being employed by the diplomatic representatives referred to are as follows: France, 36: Germany, 39; Italy, 28; United States of America, 64.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do those figures include female domestic servants? I intended my question to refer to those who were connected with the actual work of the Embassies.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I do not understand.

Sir W. DAVISON: I wish to know how many people are employed directly in connection with the work of the Embas-
sies. I do not wish to know how many female servants there are at the various Embassies.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What my hon. Friend asked was the number of persons employed. It is the custom of most of the Embassies to notify us of the whole of their staff, and I have given the figures for the whole of their staff.

Oral Answers to Questions — INSURANCE(CZECHO SLOVAKIA).

Mr. ALBERY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the main proposals of the new social insurance legislation in Czecho-slovakia, indicating especially whether the different schemes are contributory?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot do better than refer the hon. Member to the March number of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," on page 83 of which he will find full details of recent Czechoslovak legislation on social insurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PETROL EXCHANGE, UNITED STATES.

Mr. WINDSOR: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the present position in regard to petrol exchange with the United States Navy during the War; whether the Government of the United States of America has accepted the revised statement by the Admiralty referred to in page x of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Navy Appropriation Account, 1923-24; and whether he will state the amount at present due from the United States of America for petrol supplied to the Navy of that nation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY(Mr. Davidson): The United States naval authorities have not yet accepted the revised statement prepared by the Admiralty, and the matter is still under correspondence. Until an agreement is come to it is not possible to state what financial adjustments will be necessary.

SERVICE IN DOMINIONS (PENSIONS).

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an officer lent to a Dominion Government
and ordered to proceed to the Dominion to act for that Government in a consultative capacity counts his service there in all respects as if still serving with the Imperial Navy, so far as seniority and pension or widows' pension are concerned?

Mr. DAVIDSON: So far as officers lent to Dominion navies are concerned the answer is in the affirmative. Where, however, officers are lent to a Dominion Government the circumstances of each case must be taken into account, and I cannot therefore make any definite statement of a general character.

OIL FUEL (STOKER RATINGS).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what effect the introduction of oil fuel into the Royal Navy, and the extension of its use, has had upon the stoker branch both as regards numbers and promotion; whether he has considered the prospective effect of oil-fuel development upon this branch of the Royal Navy; and whether he will state the views of the Admiralty upon this important matter?

Mr. DAVIDSON: As the result of the introduction of oil fuel into the Royal Navy, smaller numbers of stoker ratings are required in ships' complements. The proportion of higher to lower stoker ratings has, however, increased, and this naturally tends to increase the prospects of advancement.

PROMOTION (STAGNATION).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the anxiety felt in the Royal Navy as regards the stagnation in promotion, which influences the minds not only of serving officers and men, but of prospective entrants to the Service, he will cause a Report to be prepared and issued upon the whole subject of promotion, reviewing the position of the past few years and forecasting, as far as possible, the future prospects?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): There is no general stagnation in promotion in the case of officers, although promotion in a few of the branches is to some extent affected by the special conditions which exist, while as regards men, the prospects of promotion or advancement depend on a
variety of considerations which it is impossible to forecast. I am afraid, therefore, that it would not be practicable to issue any useful Report on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable anxiety which is felt on this subject, and would it not be possible to allay it by some scheme?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If there were some anxiety, I would be very glad to allay it, but I do not know that that can be done by the issue of such a report as is suggested.

EX GERMAN FLOATING DOCK.

Colonel DAY: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the floating dock surrendered to Britain under the Treaty of Versailles is to be sold to the highest bidder, without restriction as to what country it shall ultimately be destined; whether any offer made by British commercial shipowners will have preferential treatment as against any offers by late enemy nations; and what was the cost of the work that was done at the new naval base at Singapore to fit it ready for this floating dock as at one time intended?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: One of the three ex German floating docks now remaining in the possession of His Majesty's Government, and not required for naval purposes, has been offered for sale at home and abroad without restriction, and no decision can be given as to the final allocation of the dock until all tenders, which are shortly due, have been received. I may add that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that this is the dock which was intended for Singapore.

ASSISTANT NAVAL ATTACHE, WASHINGTON.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to continue the appointment of an assistant naval attaché at Washington.

Mr.BRIDGEMAN: The answer is in the affirmative.

MALTA (PROPOSED BREAKWATER).

Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that since the visit to Malta
of the Board of Admiralty the superintendent civil engineer has obtained more data on which to form a rough estimate of the cost of an additional breakwater and whether a date can be named when such an estimate may be ordered, in view of the fact that Malta is bound to be the most important naval base overseas, and because of the added importance thereof as a link with Singapore?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative, and I have nothing to add to the replies already given to my hon. Friend on the 16th and 25 February.

RESERVISTS (LONG SERVICE MEDAL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a gratuity is given to the Royal Fleet Reserve men with the long service and good conduct medal, and, if so, how much it is; whether this gratuity is given to the Royal Naval Reserve men with the long service and good conduct medal, and, if so, how much it is; and what is the reason for the difference in the treatment of the two classes of reservists?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Neither the Royal Fleet Reserve nor the Royal Naval Reserve Long Service and Good Conduct Medal carries with it any monetary grant. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain to what the delay is due in the granting of marriage allowances to officers in the Royal Navy, seeing that the money for these allowances has been granted by the House of Commons; and whether he will state at what rates these will be payable?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what basis the Admiralty was able to estimate the cost of the marriage allowance to officers at £350,000 for the current year, in view of the fact that a scheme has not yet been adopted?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will answer these questions together. The Estimate was based on the proposals of the Admiralty which, as has been already stated, were referred to a Committee by the Cabinet.
As no decision has yet been taken, I regret I am not able to add to the observations I made in my statement on the Navy Estimates. (OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, cols. 2522-2523.) It will be seen from the note appended to Vote 1, Sub-head F, of the Navy Estimates, 1925-26, that the conditions governing payment had not been settled.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how the Admiralty were able to arrive at the figure of £350,000 if they were not aware what the allowances were to be?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been here when the Navy Estimates were discussed—I remember that he was not—he would have heard me say that the £350,000 was the sum which would be required if the proposals put forward by the Admiralty were eventually accepted by the Government.

Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Committee of Supply has granted the money for a purpose, and can the aim be thwarted by indefinite delay on the part of the Admiralty?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not delay of the Admiralty, at any rate. The Committee of Supply heard what I said before they voted the money.

NEW CRUISER CONSTRUCTION, BARROW.

Mr. BROMLEY: 31.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, in connection with the construction of a new cruiser at Barrow-in-Furness, a dispute respecting prices exists between the constructing firm and the members of the Boilermakers' Society; that the firm is seeking to enforce their conditions, despite the protests of the employes concerned; that a stoppage of work is probable; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, but there would be no justification for the Admiralty interfering in this dispute unless there is a violation of the Fair Wages Clause of the contract.

Mr. SHORT: Is it not a fact that this firm is the only firm responsible for the construction of these cruisers which is seeking to impose these new prices, and
is not that a good reason for intervening and preventing a stoppage?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am not aware of that.

Mr. SHORT: Will the hon. Gentleman make himself aware of these facts?

PAY(ANDERSON COMMITTEE).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if His Majesty's Government contemplate a reduction of pay in His Majesty's Navy on the lines recommended by the Anderson Committee, or alternative proposals; if he is aware that apprehension exists in the minds of the naval personnel; and will he take the pledge given 24th October, 1924, into consideration?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is no intention of interfering with any existing contracts.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

GATESHEAD EXCHANGE.

Mr. JOHN BECKETT: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour what amount has been distributed in benefit by the Gateshead Employment Exchange since the Armistice?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The approximate amount of unemployment benefit paid by the Gateshead Employment Exchange since the Armistice (including an estimated figure for benefit paid through associations) was £1,230,000. In addition, a sum of approximately £306,000 was paid in respect of out-of-work donation.

BRIERLEY (F. Nixox).

Colonel DAY: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Frederick Nixon, of Brierley, was recently refused his unemployment insurance benefit, amounting to the sum of 4s. 6d., on account of the fact that he had, on the day for which this money was stopped, attended an inquest on a man whom he had attempted to rescue from drowning and had received a witness fee of 2s. 6d.; and, as this man has been penalised by his endeavour to save life, is he prepared to cause greater discrimination to be exercised when such cases arise?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Mr. Nixon was not refused benefit. The local office quite properly raised the question of eligibility. It was dealt with promptly and payment was made on the day on which it would have been made had no question arisen.

YACHTS CREWS.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that members of the crews of yachts who ordinarily reside in the cities and industrial areas of the South are entitled to draw unemployment benefit at the end of the yachting season, if no other employment is available, while members of the crews who ordinarily reside in the Highlands are refused unemployment benefit when they become unemployed, even though they have been genuinely seeking employment and have paid all the contributions required of them when employed; and will he have this grievance remedied?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The position is not quite as stated by the right hon. Member. Unemployment benefit is only payable when the applicant is genuinely seeking work. The question whether this condition is fulfilled is one for determination not by me but by the statutory authorities, and, as a general rule, seasonal workers cannot be regarded as fulfilling this condition between seasons. Each case is, of course, considered on its merits; it may be possible for a seasonal worker to show by a record of other work in the "off" seasons that he does fulfil this condition between seasons, and it is probably the case that a dweller in an industrial area would be more likely to be able to prove this than a worker who resides in a non-industrial area. In each case, however, the determining factor would be, not the locality but the genuineness of the search for work.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Does my right hon. Friend think it reasonable that these men should be compelled to pay unemployment insurance contributions during their period of service and then not receive any benefit in return?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is a different point. If the right hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper I will answer it. I think that the practice as I have stated it is the fairest.
You have to judge, so long as the people are in employment, whether they are purely seasonal workers, whether they get work out of the season, and whether benefit should be paid.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that all the men who come from the industrial areas of the South, when the season is over get their benefits in every case, but that if these yachtsmen belong to the Highlands, which is not an industrial area, and there is no likelihood of very much employment, they are debarred from getting any money?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman has really asked his original question again. It is not a question of locality; it is a question whether the person concerned does genuinely seek work, or has been in the habit of seeking, or been presumed to seek work during the "off" season. It is obviously both right and equitable that if he is in the habit of, and can be presumed to be, seeking work in the off season, then he should have the right to benefit, but if as a rule he does not naturally seek work in the off season, he is not entitled to benefit.

Mr. MACPHERSON: What is the test for seeking work? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is very easy for a man in an industrial area to prove in some form or other that he is seeking work, but that in the Highlands that is quite impossible?

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that entire communities, like the fisher girls in the north of the Moray Firth coast, are forbidden to receive benefit, and that there is no way in which these girls can prove that they are seeking employment? Can the right hon. Gentleman say how his answer will apply to Buckie?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper, and the facts connected with it, I shall be glad to reply.

Sir W. DAVISON: May I move "that this Debate be now postponed "?

WEDNESBURY EXCHANGE.

Mr. SHORT: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that applicants for benefit when signing on at the
Wednesbury Employment Exchange have to stand in queues in all kinds of weather; and will he take steps to obviate the continuance of such a practice?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am informed that there was unavoidable congestion on certain days between 15th April and 1st May which was due to the local extension of the Easter holidays and the closing down of a large firm. Generally speaking, the timing system in operation at the Wednesbury Exchange obviates any necessity for queues, and waiting as a rule is only occasioned because some applicants persist in ignoring the timing arrangements.

BENEFIT PAYMENTS (STEPNEY).

Mr. SCURR: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount distributed in unemployment benefit in the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney for each of the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The approximate amounts of unemployment benefit (including an estimated figure for benefit paid through associations) paid by the Stepney Employment Exchange in the years 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924, were £18,000, £366,000, £268,000, £270,000 and £288,000 respectively. In addition a sum of approximately £224,000 was paid in respect of out-of-work donation in 1920 and 1921.

JUVENILE CENTRES.

Mr. MAXTON: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour how many juvenile unemployment centres are in operation in Scotland; how many pupils are receiving instruction in these centres; and the numbers of boys and girls, respectively?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Forty-three centres are open in Scotland in the areas of five local education authorities; the proposals of one authority are under consideration. The average atendances at 41 of these centres during the week which ended on 24th April was 2,106 (1,219 boys and 887 girls). The remaining two centres, which have an average attendance of about 50, did not re-open after the Easter holidays until 27th April. 14,400 boys and girls passed through the Scottish centres during the year which ended on 31st March, last.

Mr. MAXTON: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a further question, to state the cost per pupil and per centre of maintaining this scheme?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will gladly try to give the hon. Member any information of that kind which he wishes to have communicated.

Mr. LANSBURY: 76.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many juvenile unemployment centres are in operation in England and Wales; the average number of juveniles who attend and the average period of continuous attendance; what are the subjects taught and the daily hours of attendance; are the teachers certificated and entitled to pension and are they paid the same salaries as teachers in ordinary central or secondary schools; is it possible to say how many of those who attend these centres obtain permanent employment; and is it part of the duty of teachers to see that frequent applications are made by the students to the Labour Exchanges for work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have been asked to reply, and, as the answer is necessarily of considerable length, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

1. In England and Wales there are 83 centres open in the areas of 33 local education authorities. Four centres in the areas of three authorities have been approved, but are not yet open. Further, nine authorities are believed to have proposals for new or additional centres in contemplation.

2. The average number of boys and girls who attended centres in England and Wales during the week which ended on 24th April was 3,535 boys and 2,237 girls, a total of 5,772. The number of individual juveniles who attended during the same week was 6,710. The number of individual juveniles who attended centres at any time during the year which ended on 31st March, 1925, was 58,906. The average period of continuous attendance is not definitely known, but inquiries made last October indicate that it is about three to six weeks.

3. Local education authorities are given the widest discretion in the choice of subjects of instruction. The subjects most commonly taught are these:

Boys:

Physical training, including gymnastics and organised games.
Arithmetic.
English, composition and letter-writing.
Wood or metal work.
Drawing, practical and technical.

Girls:

Physical training, drill, dancing and organised games.
Drawing.
Singing.
Domestic subjects, including cookery. needlework and laundry.
Hygiene and baby welfare.
Arithmetic, related particularly to household accounts.
English, composition and letter-writing.

In addition, the curriculum, both for boys and girls, includes lectures on general subjects, on local history, travel, citizenship, etc., and for those seeking commercial employment instruction in shorthand, typewriting, bookkeeping is available. Debates are also a feature at many centres.

4. The average daily hours of attendance are three hours on five days each week.

5. I understand that a substantial proportion of the teachers in the centres are certificated. Service in the centres in England and Wales is not at present recognised for superannuation purposes, but my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education is proposing such provision as is necessary in the Teachers' Superannuation Bill now before Parliament. In the meantime local education authorities have been informed that, subject to certain conditions, teachers who are seconded for full-time service in a centre may be offered, while so serving, the salary which would have been payable to them under the recognised local scale for assistant teachers in elementary schools increased by 10 per cent.

6. The scales of salary paid to teachers vary from area to area and are those which the authorities concerned consider are appropriate. In a number of cases
the teachers are paid in accordance with the recognised local scale for assistant teachers in elementary schools.

7. It is not possible to say how many of those who attend the centres obtain permanent employment, but special arrangements are in force to ensure that boys and girls attending the centres are put in touch with employers notifying vacancies to the Employment Exchange or Juvenile Employment Bureau. A high proportion of the juveniles attending the centres secure employment in this way. There is normally no need for the juveniles concerned to apply for work at the exchange or bureau on the days on which they are attending the centres as under the arrangements mentioned officers from the exchanges or bureaux visit the centres daily or vacancies notified to the exchanges or bureaux are communicated to the centres by telephone.

UNCOVENANTED BENEFIT.

Sir W. DAVISON: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women, respectively, are now receiving uncovenanted benefit in respect of which contributions to the Insurance Fund have not been paid; and what were the numbers a year ago?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The only available figures are those obtained from a special analysis made in November, 1924, in respect of 1 per cent. of the claimants to benefit. This analysis showed thatabout 51 per cent. of the men and 32 per cent. of the women to whom benefit was being paid were then in receipt of extended benefit.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does that answer mean that at the end of October all these men and women will be cut away from unemployment benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, that is not necessarily an inference from the answer. I have often stated the position with regard to this matter, and although it does not really arise on this question, I may state that the strict rule of 30 contributions will come into operation upon 1st October, unless some "carrying over" Act is passed in the meantime.

Mr.THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it will be impossible for the men and women in question to have 30 stamps between now and October?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put down.

DARLASTON ROTA COMMITTEES.

Mr. SHORT: 42 and 43.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of times the Darlaston rota committee have met since 1st January, 1925; whether in all cases the workers' representatives have been summoned; and how many meetings have been held when workers' representatives have been absent;
(2) whether he has received evidence of dissatisfaction respecting the constitution of the various rota committees summoned by the Darlaston Employment Exchange and the fact that the workers' representatives are seldom summoned, and that the decisions recorded are frequently those of employers' representatives only; and will he cause inquiry with a view to remedying this grievance?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The inquiries I am making into the matter contained in these questions are not yet complete, but I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GRANTS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to enable local authorities to put in hand a larger amount of useful work for the absorption of the unemployed, the Government are prepared to undertake the necessary steps to enable local authorities to put in hand extended schemes of public utility works and, with the consent of the unemployed workers engaged thereon, utilise their unemployment benefit as a contribution towards their wages while so employed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Substantial grants-in-aid of relief works put in hand by local authorities are already made through the Unemployment Grants Committee and otherwise. The procedure suggested by the hon. Member would be equivalent to an increased grant, and I do not think there is justification for this apart from any question of diverting the unemployment insurance funds to this purpose.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many localities are unable to carry on at the present rate of grant, and is he not able to do something for them in view of their increasing burdens?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The question has already been considered by the Minister of Health and myself in connection with a deputation from the municipal corporations, and we have already stated that we have considered the matter carefully and have given our answer.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the answer imply that the scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) has been definitely rejected?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should put down that question.

ALIENS.

Mr. G. PETO: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour whether aliens who have not contributed to the Unemployment Fund are receiving relief from it; and, if so, whether he will put a stop to this practice?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No alien who has not contributed to the Unemployment Fund is entitled to benefit unless he is a disabled ex-service man whose disability is the reason for his failure to have contributed?

BENEFIT (INFRINGEMENT OF REGULATIONS).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour if there are any cases of workers who are being paid unemployment benefit to which they are not entitled under the existing regulations; and, if so, will he state the numbers?

Sir A.STEELMAITLAND: Benefit is not paid in any case where, according to the facts as known to the Department, the claimant is not entitled to it.

Mr. KENNEDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the ground of the sustained propaganda which has been going on during recent months in regard to the administration of the unemployment insurance fund, particularly in certain newspapers and certain quarters of the House?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. I do not know to which newspapers the hon. Member refers because it has been criticisd from both sides with almost the same acerbity.

Mr. BECKETT: 54.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of insured workers; and what is the number convicted of wrongly obtaining insurance benefit since 1st November, 1924?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total number of persons in Great Britain insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts is estimated at 11,256,000. The number of persons convicted after prosecution between the 1st November, 1924, and the 31st March, 1925, on charges of knowingly making false representations for the purpose of obtaining unemployment benefit was 757. In a further 72 cases the defendant was bound over or admonished.

Mr. BECKETT: In view of these figures, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to stop the practice of suggesting that there is a general habit on the part of the unemployed of wrongfully obtaining benefit?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain how this return compares with the number of prosecutions for false Income Tax returns?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question would be for another Minister.

UNEMPLOYMENT FUND (DEBT).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount of the debt of the unemployment fund last August and at present; and how the present revenue of the fund compares with the expenditure?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The debt of the unemployment fund was £4,770,000 on 15th August, 1924, and £7,650,000 on 30th April, 1925. For the past three months the average weekly revenue and expenditure of the unemployment fund have been respectively £938,000 and £1,059,000. The expenditure has included about £65,000 weekly of non-recurrent expenditure on refunds and compensation for future abolition of refunds.

INSURANCE ACTS (INQUIRY).

Mr. LANSBURY: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour if it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of the National Unemployment Insurance Acts; and, if so, what is to be the personnel of such Committee and its terms of reference?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not at present in a position to answer the hon. Member, but hope to give him a reply shortly.

WEST HAM (RELIEF WORK).

Mr. GROVES: 69.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the growing dissatisfaction among the poor people of the County Borough of West Ham in regard to the recent imposition by the West Ham Board of Guardians of a system of relief work equal in financial results only to the amount of relief that the person would otherwise be drawing; that it is, in itself, the duty of the guardians to relieve the poor and prevent destitution and not to promote schemes of work for the sake of work itself; and whether he will instruct the guardians to at once cease these tasks and refer the matter of relief schemes to the Ministry of Labour?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I may refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to a question he put on this subject. The arrangements by the West Ham Guardians enable them to set to work a certain number of men who would otherwise merely receive relief without work. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to instruct the guardians in the sense suggested.

Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that now the position is that the men merely receive work which will give them wages only equal to the money they would otherwise draw in relief, and can he not so arrange that the work shall be augmented, so that the men may have a full week's work at trade union rates?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of those facts, but if the hon. Member will submit them to me, I will endeavour to give him a reply.

Mr. GROVES: 72.
asked the Minister of Health if he has considered the effect upon the rent payers and the shopkeepers of West Ham as the result of the high poor rate necessarily levied within this area; and whether he proposes collaboration with the Ministry of Labour respecting the introduction of schemes of work, thereby absorbing the able-bodied and willing workers and reducing the demand for Poor Law purposes?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the high rates levied in West Ham. As regards the last part of
the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the circular letter recently issued by the Unemployment Grants Committee, of which I am sending him a copy.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. BRIANT: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons in receipt of the unemployment insurance grants are on any given days of 1925 also in receipt of Poor Law relief other than medical treatment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Statistics are not regularly compiled in respect of claimants to benefit who are also in receipt of Poor Law relief, but the results of a special analysis made in November, 1924, in respect of 1 per cent. of the claimants to benefit at that date show that 4.7 per cent. of the male claimants and 0.3 per cent. of the female were then in receipt of Poor Law relief.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES).

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men employed as temporary clerks at Employment Exchanges have been discharged during the past six months; how many have subsequently been re-engaged as auxiliary clerks on a weekly basis and for how long; and how many temporary and auxiliary clerks are at present under notice?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the answer is necessarily somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

During the period 1st November, 1924, to 30th April, 1925, 50 temporary clerks actually ceased to be employed by the Department after the issue of a month's notice of termination of their appointments. Of this number eight were subsequently re-appointed and are still in post. In addition 267 temporary clerks received a month's notice of the termination of their appointments, but were subsequently re-appointed on an auxiliary basis without any break in their service. Of this number 142 are still in post and 125 received a week's notice of discharge,
after having served as auxiliary clerks for the following periods:—

63 for less than one month.
33 between one and two months.
25 between two and three months.
4 between three and four months.

As regards the number of temporary staff at present under notice, there are 99 temporary clerks under one month's notice of the termination of their temporary appointments and 90 auxiliary clerks under one week's notice of termination of their auxiliary appointments. It is anticipated that it will be necessary to re-appoint on an auxiliary basis 89 of the 99 regular temporary clerks now under notice.

The hon. Member is probably aware that the special arrangements for employing temporary staff on an auxiliary basis in the Employment Exchanges are designed to meet the very rapid fluctuations in the work arising from local changes in the state of employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MISS VIOLET DOUGLAS-PENNANT.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Miss Violet Douglas-Pennant has refused to accept the letter written to her on behalf of the late Prime Minister as satisfactory reparation, he will have further inquiry made into the case?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. The letter addressed to Miss Douglas-Pennant on the 30th April, 1924, represents the views held by the late Prime Minister; by myself; and by our predecessor in office, Mr. Bonar Law.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTSMORGAN: Does the Prime Minister understand that this question is causing great excitement and anxiety in Carnarvon Boroughs in particular and in Wales in general?

The PRIME MINISTER: I know there has been excitement sporadically arising for some years past, but I do not know that it is greater now than it has been.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL-BUILDING CONTRACT, WEST HAM.

Colonel APPLIN: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, during the building of the schools in
West Ham, in 1923, Mr. A. E. Short, a working man acting as foreman for the contractor, paid the workmen's wages when the contractor failed to provide the money, in order to enable the electric lighting installation to be completed, the said workmen all being unemployed especially engaged for this work; and that when the contractor failed and a receiver was appointed, the money due for these wages, amounting to about £400, was paid by the West Ham Council to the receiver and not to Mr. Short, who has thus lost the whole of his small savings and is now destitute; and whether he will take the necessary steps to see that this money is refunded to Mr. Short as an act of justice?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I am informed by the receiver appointed by the debenture holders that Mr. Short has claimed from the company sums amounting to £535 6s. 7d., of which £232 18s. 1½d. is in respect of wages. The receiver has a counterclaim against Mr. Short, amounting to £532. An Order to wind-up the company compulsorily was made on the 29th January, 1924, and the receiver states that he has been informed by Mr. Short's solicitors that the only claim made now upon the receiver was in respect of a preferential debt of £50, due to Mr. Short for wages. The receiver states that he is quite prepared to adjust whatever legal claim Mr. Short may have against him. The Board of Trade have no powers to take any action in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON HOURSCONVENTION.

Captain BENN: 55.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to get into touch with foreign Governments in order to secure their agreement to the Washington Hours' Convention?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not in a position to reply to the hon. Member to-day, but hope to be able to inform him shortly.

Captain BENN: Upon what date may I put down a question again?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGENT STREET (CROWN PROPERTY).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, the amount of land owned by the State in Regent Street; the date and value when acquired; and the value to-day?

Major COPE (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply for the Minister of Agriculture. The Crown owns all the frontage land in Regent Street, with the exception of a block immediately south of the Langham Hotel. Nearly all the land north of the Quadrant in Regent Street was acquired under the New Street Act, 1813, for the formation of Regent Street. The site of the Quadrant and Lower Regent Street was ancient Crown property. It is impossible to state what was the value of the land when acquired, but an idea of the present value may be gathered from the fact that the total rental obtained from ground rents in respect of the premises on completion of rebuilding will be approximately £450,000 per annum.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the hon. and gallant Member refer those figures to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a means of getting increased income in the future?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).

Sir W. DAVISON: 66.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what progress has been made towards the promised improvement of the ventilation of the debating chamber of the House?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON (for the First Commissioner of Works): The preliminary work in connection with the preparation of drawings, etc., is in hand, but it will not be possible to commence the actual alterations in the Chamber until the Autumn Recess.

Sir W DAVISON: Will plans be available in the Tea Room?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (ARMY MEDICAL SERVICES).

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 67.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India why
officers of the Army Medical Services in India are not included in the revised rates of pay introduced for combatant officers as from the 1st July, 1924; and whether he will recommend that corresponding advances be given to such branches of the Service at an early date?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfriesshire (Brigadier-General Charteris) on the 6th April, of which I will send him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC LIBRARIES (INFECTION).

Mr. GROVES: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the danger of infection to the frequenters of public libraries through the use of books previously handled by persons suffering from infectious ailments, or books having been in homes where infectious ailments have developed; and whether he will consider taking special steps to investigate these possible dangers to public health by calling the attention periodically of local authorities to the need of the utilisation of adequate disinfectants in the public libraries?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but my right hon. Friend is advised that medical officers of health are fully alive to whatever danger of infection there may be from this source. Special provisions as to the precautions to be taken to prevent the spread of infection through the use of library books are contained in Section 59 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, and that Section may be put in force in any district on the application of the local authority. In the circumstances my right hon. Friend does not consider it necessary to undertake any special investigation or to issue any periodical instructions to local authorities on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUAL WARDS (OAKUM PICKING).

Captain BENN: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has issued a new Poor (Relief) Order making oakum picking one of the authorised tasks in the casual ward?

Sir K. WOOD: The Order to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is mainly a consolidating Order which follows the Order of 1882 in including oakum picking among other authorised tasks.

Captain BENN: Is it a fact that the amount allotted both to men and women has actually been increased in quantity, and does the hon. Member think it decent at this time in the world's history to impose such a degrading task?

Sir K. WOOD: In answer to the first part of the question, I am informed that, so far as this Order is concerned, it reduces the actual hours of work from nine to eight per day. The matter of oakum picking is, of course, it is true, a quantity task. As regards the latter part of the question, as I dare say my hon. and gallant Friend knows, it is a question for the authorities themselves whether they desire to impose this task.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that no authority can impose this task without the sanction of the Minister of Health; is it not a fact that large numbers—I think the figures are about 4,000—of ex-service men are frequently in casual wards just now, and is it not a disgrace to put them to the tasks of oakum picking and stone-breaking simply because of their poverty? You are going back half-a-century.

Mr. ERSKINE: Is there anything indecent in oakum picking?

Mr. LANSBURY: You go and do it. You go and try. You did not dare to tell them to do it during the War. It is disgraceful!

Mr. SPEAKER: Remarks should be addressed to me, and not to other Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY COMPANIES (COAL STOCKS).

Mr. DAVID WILLIAMS: 75.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of coal held in stock by the principal railways of this country; and the approximate value of such stock in money?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL(Secretary, Overseas Trade Deparment): This information is not in the possession of the Board of Trade, nor, as I understand, after inquiry, of any other Department of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR ESTIMATES (UNEXPENDED BALANCE).

LieutCommanderKENWORTHY: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how much of the moneys voted for warlike stores and material, including new aeroplanes and seaplanes, was unexpended on last year's Estimates; and what was the reason for the non-expenditure of this money?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR(Sir Samuel Hoare): The answer to the first part of the question is nil, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 62.
asked the Attorney-General when the new advisory committee upon justices of the peace for Stirlingshire is to be appointed; and whether he can give the reasons why, and on whose advice, a committee reconstituted only a few months ago has been disbanded?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL(Sir Thomas Inskip): The Lord Chancellor proposes that the term of office of the new Stirlingshire Justices' Advisory Committee shall commence as from the 1st April, 1925. He hopes to appoint the members during the present month. As regards the second part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his question on the 30th March last by my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 63.
asked the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor receives any report of the efficiency, or non-efficiency, of justices of the peace; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of asking for such reports?

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. The Lord Chancellor does not think any useful purpose would be served by asking for reports of the efficiency or non-efficiency of justices of the peace, and, since there must be about 20,000 justices of the peace, he does not think it is practicable to carry out my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 64.
asked the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor, in all future appointments of justices of the peace which have not been recommended by an advisory committee, nor referred to them, will notify the chairman or senior magistrate of the bench concerned by whom the recommendation for appointment was made?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is not the Lord Chancellor's practice to make appointments to the Bench except after consultation with his advisory committee, and therefore my hon. Friend's question does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how much money the Government have at their disposal of the fund set aside for the settlement of claims for suffering and damage by enemy action; and whether it is the intention to pay anything further in respect of those claims over and above the two-fifths which has already been paid?

Mr. GUINNESS: Although the awards recommended by the Sumner Commission and those under the scheme for belated claims have for the most part now been paid, in exceptional cases it has not yet been possible to complete the work, and accordingly I am not at present able to state what, if any, balance of the money allocated will remain unexpended. In reply to the last part of the question, I fear that I can hold out no hope that there will be any increased payments over and above those made on the recommendation of the Royal Commission or under the scheme for belated claims.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will not the matter come up again if we receive substantial payments from Germany on account of reparations, and will not perfectly genuine claims then be reconsidered, when they have not received full compensation under this claim?

Mr. GUINNESS: These claimants have received in advance out of the reparations payments very much more than the proportion which they would have received if they had not been paid on account.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not that simply because the Government
did not put in a sufficient claim and had not the evidence to put the claim forward? Are they not prepared to revise it?

Mr. GUINNESS: Had the Government put in a larger claim still, the fixed amount of these private claims would have fallen to a smaller proportion, and, therefore, their present excess would have been far greater than it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

HORSE MAIL-DRIVERS.

Mr. MARCH: 77.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in the displacement of horse mail-drivers, he is proposing to find other employment for them or allowing some compensation for loss of position or superannuation for services rendered?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL(Viscount Wolmer): The drivers to whom the hon. Member refers are the employes of contractors, and I have no power to pay them compensation for unemployment or superannuation from Post Office funds. I regret that, as there are no horse mail-drivers directly employed by the Post Office, I am unable to find them employment.

Mr. MARCH: Is it not a fact that the Post Office takes sole charge and control, and the regulation and dictation of these men immediately they leave the contractor's yard until they return to the contractor's yard, and, therefore, they become morally responsible for these men?

Viscount WOLMER: These men are employed by the contractor, and the contract with the contractor is now terminated.

Mr. PALIN: Would it not be possible, having regard to the moral obligation of the Postmaster-General, having employed them for so many years, to give these men an opportunity of training for posts?

Viscount WOLMER: There is no post for mail drivers for which they can qualify. If they could be employed in other Post Office work, I am sure their claims would be considered sympathetically.

Mr. PALIN: But are there not a number of men capable of being trained?

Viscount WOLMER: I shall be glad to look into the matter from that point of view.

POSTMEN (HEIGHT STANDARD).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 78.
asked the Postmaster-General whether it is the practice of the Post Office to require that in the appointment of postmen a height of 5 feet 4 inches is necessary; and whether there have been instances of ex-service men being turned down on this ground after they have been appointed?

Viscount WOLMER: The minimum height limit for the appointment of candidates as postmen is fixed at 5 feet 4 inches, on account of the nature of the work which they are liable to perform within the office. I am not aware of any instances in which an ex-service man has been dismissed on this ground after appointment to an established position, but I shall be glad to have inquiry made into any particular case that the hon. Member may have in mind.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask whether the height of a man forms his capacity for each different class of work?

Viscount WOLMER: It is necessary to have some standard, because the sorting frames are all constructed on the assumption that postmen and sorters are of moderate dimensions. The hon. Member would not find it very easy to sort a letter into a pigeon hole if he could not reach it.

Mr. B. SMITH: Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health stand a chance, should he lose his job?

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is not the breadth of a postman far more important than his height?

MEDICAL OFFICERS' QUALIFICATIONS.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 79.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that in appointing medical officers to the Post Office the three qualifications stated to be required are professional skill, service in the War, and length of residence, why in a recent appointment made in Dunoon some of these desiderata were ignored and
an appointment made on apparently other grounds, and contrary to the ballot of those members of the postal service who were to have the benefit of the medical man's services?

Viscount WOLMER: The qualifications mentioned by my hon. Friend are not the only factors taken into consideration. The medical officer appointed at Dunoon had previously been Post Office Medical Officer at a neighbouring office, and was familiar with the official requirements; and his professional qualifications were of a high order. He was regarded as the most suitable of the candidates for the post.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD TOLLS AND BRIDGES.

Brig.-General CLIFTON BROWN: 80.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the number of tolls which contribute to road maintenance in England, Wales, and Scotland; how much do they contribute annually; and what would be the total cost of freeing roads from tolls as contemplated in Section 2 of the Roads Improvement Bill?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): In England and Wales there are 64 toll roads and 127 toll bridges. Tolls on roads and bridges in Scotland were abolished by the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act of 1878. No information is available as to the yield of tolls in England and Wales, or of the probable cost of extinguishing them. I may add that the extinction of all tolls is not necessarily contemplated in Clause 2 of the Roads Improvement Bill.

Mr. HURD: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is taking power to free these tolls without knowing the amount involved, and without making any limitation whatever as to the amount spent?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly, we take account of the amount of money involved, but I cannot possibly say what proposal is put forward by the local authority.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman making limitations of the amount to be spent.

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir.

TRAFFIC CONTROL.

Captain BRASS: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the increasing congestion in the London streets, he will consider the suggestion of sending some police officers to Paris to study the French methods of traffic control by means of single-direction roads and electric signals, which methods are becoming increasingly efficient in that city?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have been asked to reply to this question. My right hon. Friend is considering the suggestion in consultation with the Commissioner of Police.

Captain BRASS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Paris the intervals of holding up traffic are much more frequent than in London, and that, consequently, the acceleration of traffic is much better?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The whole matter will be considered.

Captain BRASS: 82.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he could issue instructions for Lower Regent Street and the Haymarket, which are now being turned into single-direction roads by the police during certain hours of the evening, to be opened right across for the one-way traffic, as is the practice in Paris, as the present method of closing one-half of the road altogether has the effect of halving the size of the road?

Colonel ASHLEY: The traffic arrangements at present in operation in Lower Regent Street and the Haymarket during certain hours of the evening have been instituted to meet the special requirements of theatre traffic. I am informed that they are working quite satisfactorily, and I am advised that the use of the whole thoroughfare in each case for one-way traffic, as suggested by my hon. and gallant friend, would not be likely to produce such satisfactory results. The remainder of the street is, moreover, of considerable value for the temporary accommodation of vehicles. The suggestion, however, will be borne in mind.

ROAD DAMAGE, ARGYLL.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 83.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that certain of the roads in the Cowal district of Argyll are exposed to damage by sea action, from which landward dis-
tricts are exempt, and that in the last 12 years nearly £1,500 has been expended upon such roads, and owing to storms this year about £4,320 damage has been done, will grants be given in such districts to assist in the repair of sea damage?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the Cowal District Committee will forward particulars of the roads damaged by sea action, together with descriptions and estimates of the repair works proposed to be carried out, I will consider whether assistance can be offered from the Road Fund.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULAR SERVICE (LEAVE).

Captain CAZALET: 84.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that members of the consular service are granted 45 days' leave a year, but any night, even during the week-end when the consular office is closed, spent away from their actual place of residence is deducted from this period of vacation; and whether, as this prevents consuls from getting to know their local districts and restricts the amount of knowledge they are able to send home, he will alter the conditions of service in this respect?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will be glad to know that he has been misinformed. Members of the Consular Service receive 42 or 56 days' leave a year according to their seniority. No deductions are made from these periods in respect of absences such as those referred to. Time spent on journeys undertaken by consular officers, within their districts under authority from this Department, does not count as leave of absence.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY ACCOUNTANCY.

Mr. HOMAN: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the expenditure incurred by the Corps of Military Accountants in the performance of its duties produces a saving of a like amount?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): In a complex organisation such as the Army, the amount of the saving that may result from any particular mode of pre-
senting the accounts must be a matter of opinion, but I can assure the hon. Member that this aspect of the question will not be overlooked in arriving at a decision on the system of accounting.

Mr. HOMAN: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the second Committee appointed to inquire into the Army accounting system has issued its Report; and, if not, when the Report may be expected?

Captain KING: No, Sir; the further Committee to which, I presume, the hon. Member refers has not yet reported.

Oral Answers to Questions — ILLEGAL TRAWLING, SCOTLAND.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 87.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the master of the trawler "Cevic" FD 186, of Fleetwood, was tried for illegal trawling in November last; that the fishery cruiser had photographed the trawler within a distance of 30 to 40 feet, and the officers of the cruiser had identified her; and that the sheriff's substitute at Campeltown held the case not proven in respect of evidence of alibi given by the trawler's crew; and, seeing that the fishery cruiser spoke to the trawler and threatened to fire, but having nothing to fire with had to refrain from doing so, is he now in a position to state what steps, other than providing the fishery cruisers with ammunition, he proposes to take in identification of the trawlers so that they may be successfully prosecuted?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am aware of the case to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, in which the facts were substantially as stated in the question. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the measures taken with a view to the identification of offending vessels, and, in particular, of vessels which conceal their registration letters and numbers, but no effort will be spared to secure the enforcement of the law.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are the boats not to get some ammunition? It needs something more drastic.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORMAN THORNE (LETTERS).

Colonel DAY: 88.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a
number of letters written by Norman Thorne to his father were detained by the authorities; that one was detained on account of a reference to Dr. Spilsbury, and another on account of the inclusion of some verses of Thorne's own composition; that all his letters written between 11th and 18th April were detained; that letters written to Norman Thorne by relatives and friends were not delivered with the exception of one from Mrs. Cameron; that Thorne's last letter to his father was not released for delivery until after his execution; and whether he will explain the reason for this course of action on the part of the authorities?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The usual practice was followed in this case. Certain letters written by the prisoner were stopped, because they commented improperly upon the conduct of the deceased girl and her relatives, and upon persons connected with the case. The prisoner was, however, allowed to send a large number of letters, most of which appear to have been handed to the Press by the recipients. No incoming letters were stopped.

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the prisoner himself was informed that the letters he had sent were in fact stopped?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, I cannot answer that question, but, under the standing orders, the Governor of every prison is given full discretion to stop any letter which he may think improper.

Mr. SMITH: The point I want to make —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order" !]. Surely the prisoner ought to have been notified that the letters would not, in fact, be sent, and should be amended. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"]

Mr. SPEAKER: That it should be put in the form of a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR CARS (POLICE TIMING).

Captain BRASS: 89.
asked the Home Secretary how many officers were employed in the Metropolitan police area over the week-ends 28th to 30th March and 4th to 6th April, respectively, in timing motor cars with the object of prosecuting the drivers for exceeding the speed-limits
of 10 or 20 miles per hour or for dangerous driving; and what duties these officers would have been peforming had they not been especially detailed for this work?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: To obtain particulars of this kind for the whole of the Metropolitan police district involves a great deal of work, which could not be completed in the short interval since the question was put down. I will, however, send the hon. and gallant Member what information I can.

Captain BRASS: Can the hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the last part of the question?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think it is given in the first part of my answer.

Mr. R. MORRISON: When the hon. Member is getting the information asked for by his hon. and gallant Friend, could he at the same time get the number of Members of this House who have been convicted for breaking the law in this respect?

Captain BRASS: What duties would these officers have been performing had they not been specially detailed for this work? The hon. Member has not given me that information.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I thought I had answered that when I said that to obtain particulars of this kind involved a great deal of work, which could not be completed in the short interval since the question was put down.

Mr. BECKETT: Has the hon. Gentleman found that more police have been required since the Act of 1924?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: 90.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Income Tax and Super-tax collected for the year ended 31st March, 1925, or, alternatively, the year ended 31st March, 1924, from productive and distributive industries, respectively?

Mr. GUINNESS: I regret that it is not possible to earmark any part of the produce of the Income Tax and Super-tax as contributed by any particular group of industries. The greater part of the revenue from Income Tax, and the whole of that from Super-tax, is derived from
the taxation of personal incomes; and the amount of tax paid by any individual depends, not upon the particular occupation or trade in which he is engaged, but upon his total income, his family responsibilities, and other factors.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Does not the Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners distinguish between the two classes?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, Sir, and it would need expensive and very costly inquiries into what are the materials in the hands of the Special Commissioners before we could possibly arrive at the figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — MASAI INQUIRY.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 91.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Masai Inquiry, promised since July, 1923, has yet been received by His Majesty's Government; and, if so, when he proposes to lay this upon the Table of the House?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES(Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Report has not yet been received, but I am inquiring of the Acting Governor how matters stand.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS AND VISAS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has arrived at a decision with regard to the proposal of the United States Government to abolish visa fees on passports?

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Various Departments of His Majesty's Government have to be consulted before a decision relating to visa fees can be arrived at.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea as to when a decision on this very important question may be expected to be arrived at?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I cannot; it is under consideration.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I put a question down a fortnight to-day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend may always put questions down.

Oral Answers to Questions — GLOVE INDUSTRY.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: 47.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of operatives eLgaged in the glove industry in this country, and the average percentage of unemployment during the year 1924?

Sir A. STEELMAITLAND: According to the population Census of 1921 the number of persons in the glove industry of Great Britain was 10,444, including employers and persons working on their own account. I am unable to give the average percentage of unemployment as the figures for this industry are not tabulated separately.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET PROPOSALS.

MOTOR CARS AND OTHER FOREIGN IMPORTS.

RETROSPECTIVE DUTIES.

Commander WILLIAMS: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent abnormal importations of goods covered by the McKenna Duties in the interval before they come into force?

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. Are these duties correctly described as "McKenna Duties "? Is the term known to Parliament? Would they not be more properly described as "Churchill Duties "?

Mr. SPEAKER: There are certain phrases which come into common use, though they may not be found in the dictionary. It would not be very easy for me, I think, to prevent the use of these after they have come into common use.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): My attention has been called to this matter. In making my estimate of Revenue from these duties—these so-called McKenna Duties—for the current year I made allowance for some increase in importations between the Budget statement and the date of the operation of the duties. The matter is being carefully watched, and I shall not hesitate to come to the House for authority to ante-date the operation of the duties should my esti-
mate of Revenue show signs of being prejudiced by excessive importations. Meanwhile the Customs authorities are keeping careful record of all importations so as to be in a position to collect the duty retrospectively should such a course be found necessary.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: Is there any precedent for retrospective taxation of this sort? Is there any reason to believe that any of this importation is dishonest or fraudulent?

Mr. CHURCHILL: These are matters which will have to be taken into consideration by the House, in the event of it being necessary to ask for further powers.

Lieut.-CommanderKENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that he is doing much more harm by this uncertainty and threatening than even the mischief that the duties themselves will do?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If the right hon. Gentleman was putting a duty on tobacco, sugar or tea, would he not make it from the date of the announcement of the duty? Why should there be a different procedure adopted in regard to these duties?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is due to the law of the land, which only allows duties already in existence to be reimposed, or varied, as from the date of the passing of the Resolutions by the House. The Resolutions do not afford a basis for the collection of these duties which, as in this case, are new subjects of taxation, and therefore require to be treated by a different procedure.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on whom he proposes to levy the duties, in the event of these articles having changed hands?

Mr. SPEAKER: It will be time to consider that point when the matter arises in debate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the Prime Minister if, for the convenience of the House, he will say how far the Government propose to go with business to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible for me to say how far we are likely to go. That depends upon the House itself; but it is not, at all events, our intention to sit late to-night.

Captain BENN: Does that mean that, in spite of the fact that the Eleven o'Clock Rule does not apply to these Resolutions, at 8.15 a Private Member's Motion will terminate the Budget Debate for to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that is the intention.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Cyril Cobb to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Allotments Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

NEW IMPORT DUTIES.

Captain BENN: I ventured yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to bring to your notice a point of Order touching the Resolution headed New Import Duties, and in accordance with your permission, I beg to put the point to you again. May I draw your attention to the Motion which stands on the Order Paper. Perhaps it will state the case better if I simply read the Resolution. It is as follows:
 That this House declines to consider a composite Resolution which is a breach of established constitutional and Parliamentary usage, and groups together under a single head disconnected proposals for the imposition of a series of duties from which the country is at present exempt.
The points I put to you yesterday were, first, that the practice of the House requires a separate Question to be put for each separate tax; secondly, that that has been upheld by recent rulings, notably a ruling by Mr. Speaker Lowther in 1916; thirdly, that this Resolution is an infringement of the undoubted rights of Parliament. In those circumstances, I submit to you that you should permit my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) to move this Motion to recommit the Resolution to the Committee of Ways and Means when the Resolution is reported.

Mr. SPEAKER: There seem to be two questions put in one. With regard to the Motion standing on the Order Paper, which is in the form of a reasoned Amendment, that is not in order, and cannot be entertained. With regard to the question of a Motion to recommit, do I understand the hon. and gallant Member—

Captain BENN: Yes. Having been informed by you, Sir that this Motion cannot be taken, I now proceed to ask whether, when the New Import Duties Resolution comes up, I may move, that it be recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member asks me for the
reasons which have been set forward, that is to say, his claim that the form of the Resolution is unusual, and perhaps wrong, that he may have an opportunity of raising that point by means of a Motion to recommit the Resolution to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Captain BENN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a long time since there was any Motion to recommit a Ways and Means Resolution, and I had some hesitation in considering the point put to me by the hon. and gallant Member, but if this be treated, as I think it ought to be, as a quite exceptional case of a form of Resolution, seeing that it speaks of reviving a duty, then I think I ought to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the opportunity of moving, shortly, the recommittal of the Resolution, in order that he may raise that point on the Floor of the House.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would like to ask your ruling and guidance, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Amendments to the Third Resolution appearing in the name of myself and others. It will be evident that, if you rule strictly that no subject is relevant to the discussion of one of these Amendments except the precise articles mentioned in the Amendment, there will, necessarily, be considerable repetition in discussing the consecutive Amendments. I suggest to you that, perhaps, you may see your way to allow a wider discussion on the first of these Amendments, in that way possibly shortening the demand on the time of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand from representations which have reached me that there is a desire in the House for a wider discussion than is possible on any one of these Amendments. In the absence of an agreement with the House, I should be bound to apply the usual strict ruling with regard to Amendments. But I recognise that what is asked might be for the general convenience of the House, and, if the House so wish, I shall be agreeable to allowing a general Debate on these so-called McKenna Duties on the first Amendment, with an opportunity, of course, for Divisions on the three sub
sequent groups of articles, reserving at the same time the further Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Span Valley (Sir J. Simon). May I take it that that is agreeable to the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed" !] Then, in reply to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), I should propose to follow that procedure, allowing the wider discussion on the first Amendment, Divisions only being taken on the subsequent similar ones.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Without any further Debate?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

Orders of the Day — REPORT [28TH APRIL].

Resolutions reported,

Orders of the Day — CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.

CONTINUATION OF DUTY ON TEA.

1. "That, the customs duty charged on tea until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, shall continue to be charged on and after that date until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, that is to say:—

Tea … … the pound fourpence.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

CONTINUATION OF ADDITIONAL MEDICINE DUTIES (EXCISE).

2. "That the additional duties of excise on medicines imposed by Section eleven of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915. and continued by Section eight of the Finance Act, 1924, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, shall continue to be charged on and after that date until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-six.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

NEW IMPORT DUTIES.

3. "That the new import duties which zero imposed by Part I of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, shall be revived and shall be charged on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, and for the purpose of the charge of duty on cinematograph films the expressions 'positives' and 'negatives' in Section twelve of the said Act shall be deemed respectively to include undeveloped positives and undeveloped negatives "

SILK (CUSTOMS).

4. "That on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty five, the following duties of customs shall be charged on the importation into Great Britain or Northern Ireland of the following goods, that is to say:—

Silk:


Cocoons and waste of all kinds—





s.
d.


Undischarged
the lb.
1
6


Wholly or partly discharged
the lb.
3
0


Raw—





Undischarged
the lb.
4
0


Wholly or partly discharged
the lb.
5
9


Thrown or spun, including yarns and threads of all kinds—



Undischarged
the lb.
4
8


Wholly or partly discharged
the lb.
6
8


Tissue containing silk—



Undischarged
the lb.
5
3


Wholly or partly discharged
the lb.
7
9


Artificial silk:



Yarn thread, straw, or waste
the lb.
3
0


Tissue containing artificial silk
the lb.
3
6


Articles not heretofore specified made wholly or in part of silk or artificial silk
A duty equal to 33⅓ percent. of the value of the article."

Silk (EXCISE).

5. "That on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, there shall be charged—

(a) on all artificial silk yarn, thread, straw, or waste manufactured in Great Britain or Northern Ireland an excise duty at the rate of two shillings and sixpence for every pound's weight; and
(b) in respect of every licence to be taken out annually by a manufacturer of artificial silk yarn, thread, straw, or waste in Great Britain or Northern Ireland an excise duty of twenty shillings."

HOPS AND BEER.

6. "That during a period of four years beginning on the sixteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, the following duties of customs shall be charged on the importation into Great Britain or
Northern Ireland of the following goods, that is to say:—

£
s.
d.


Hops
the cwt.
4
0
0


Every extract, essence, or other similar preparation made from hops
An amount equal to the duty on the quantity of hops which, in the opinion of the
commissioners of Customs and Excise, has been used in the manufacture of the extract, essence,
or preparation.


Beer

In addition to the essence duties of customs now chargeable, a duty of tenpence
for every 36 gallons where the worts were before fermentation of a specific gravity of 1,055
degrees, and so in proportion for any difference in gravity."

INCOME TAX. CHARGE OF TAX.

7. "That—

(a) Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen
hundred and twenty-five, at the rate of four shillings in the pound; and

(b) The annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose of Income Tax
under Schedules A and B for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and
twenty-four, shall be taken as the annual value of that property for the same purpose for the
year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-five;

Provided that the foregoing provision relating to annual value shall not apply to lands,
tenements, and hereditaments in the administrative county of London with respect to which the
valuation list under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, is by that Act made conclusive for
the purposes of Income Tax; and

(c) The like provisions shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax so charged as had
effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April,
nineteen hundred and twenty-four.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall
have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act,
1913."

SUPER-TAX.

8. "That—

(a) the additional duty of Income Tax (called Super-tax) shall be charged in respect of
incomes which exceed £2,000 as follows:—


In respect of the first 2,000l. of the income
Nil.


In respect of the excess over 2,000l.—



For every pound of the first 500l. of the excess
Ninepence.


For every pound of the next 500l. of the excess
One shilling.


For every pound of the next 1,000l. of the excess
One shilling and sixpence.


For every pound of the next 1,000l. of the excess
Two shillings and threepence.


For every pound of the next 1,000l. of the excess
Three shillings.


For every pound of the next 2,000l. of the excess
Three shillings and sixpence.


For every pound of the next 2,000l. of the excess
Four shillings.


For every pound of the next 5,000l. of the excess
Four shillings and sixpence.


For every pound of the next 5,000l. of the excess
Five shillings.


For every pound of the next 10,000l. of the excess
Five shillings and sixpence.


For every pound of the remainder of the excess
Six shillings.

(b) the like provisions shall have effect with respect to the Super-tax so charged as had effect with respect to the Super-tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-four.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. 1913."

ESTATE DUTY (ALTERATION OF SCALE)..

9. "That there shall be substituted for the rates of Estate Duty set out in the Third Schedule to the Finance Act, 1919,
rates in accordance with the following table:

Principal value of the estate.
Rate per cent. of duty.



£


£



Exceeds
100
and does
not exceed
500
1


Exceeds
500
and does
not exceed
1,000
2


Exceeds
1,000
and does
not exceed
5,000
3


Exceeds
5,000
and does
not exceed
10,000
4


Exceeds
10,000
and does
not exceed
12,500
5


Exceeds
12,500
and does
not exceed
15,000
6


Exceeds
15,000
and does
not exceed
18,000
7


Exceeds
18,000
and does
not exceed
21,000
8


Exceeds
21,000
and does
not exceed
25,000
9


Exceeds
25,000
and does
not exceed
30,000
10


Exceeds
30,000
and does
not exceed
35,000
11


Exceeds
35,000
and does
not exceed
40,000
12


Exceeds
40,000
and does
not exceed
45,000
13


Exceeds
45,000
and does
not exceed
50,000
14


Exceeds
50,000
and does
not exceed
55,000
15


Exceeds
55,000
and does
not exceed
65,000
16


Exceeds
65,000
and does
not exceed
75,000
17


Exceeds
75,000
and does
not exceed
85,000
18


Exceeds
85,000
and does
not exceed
100,000
19


Exceeds
100,000
and does
not exceed
120,000
20


Exceeds
120,000
and does
not exceed
140,000
21


Exceeds
140,000
and does
not exceed
170,000
22


Exceeds
170,000
and does
not exceed
200,000
23


Exceeds
200,000
and does
not exceed
250,000
24


Exceeds
250,000
and does
not exceed
325,000
25


Exceeds
325,000
and does
not exceed
400,000
26


Exceeds
400,000
and does
not exceed
500,000
27


Exceeds
500,000
and does
not exceed
750,000
28


Exceeds
750,000
and does
not exceed
1,000,000
29


Exceeds
1,000,000
and does
not exceed
1,250,000
30


Exceeds
1,250,000
and does
not exceed
1,500,000
32


Exceeds
1,500,000
and does
not exceed
2,000,000
35


Exceeds
2,000,000
…
…
…
40."

SUCCESSION DUTY.

10. "That for the purposes of Section eighteen of the Finance Act, 1894, and of Section fifty-eight of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, a succession shall be deemed to arise on the happening of the death by reason of which the successor, or any person in his right or on his behalf, becomes entitled in possession to the succession or to the receipt of the income or profits thereof."

LIABILITY OF DOMINION GOVERNMENTS TO TAXATION IN RESPECT OF TRADING OPERATIONS.

11. "That where a trade or business of any kind is carried on by or on behalf of the Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions outside Great Britain and Northern Ireland that Government shall, in respect of the trade or business and of all operations in connection therewith, all property occupied in Great Britain or Northern Ireland and all goods owned in Great Britain or Northern Ireland for the purposes thereof and all income arising in connection therewith, be liable, in the same manner as in the like case any other person would be, to all taxation for the time being in force in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.

For the purposes of this Resolution the expression ' His Majesty's Dominions ' includes any territory which is under His Majesty's protection or in respect or which
a mandate is being exercised by the Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions."

DUTY ON TEA.

First Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. CHARLETON: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out the word "fourpence" and to insert instead thereof the words "one penny.".
The principle underlying my Amendment is one which we on this side of the House support against the Government. We support the idea of direct taxation as against indirect taxation, but we are not proposing to raise that issue at the moment. As the House will observe, I am asking for threepence reduction on the Tea Duty, making it one penny, leaving the Debate on the principle to a more appropriate occasion. One of the reasons for moving this Amendment is that we do not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his hope that he will succeed in his taxation in balancing the scales of social justice between the various classes. We think that if he could accept our Amendment he would more nearly succeed in his object than by the present Budget. In saying that we are leaving out of account altogether the Widows' Pensions Bill, which, of course, is not really connected with the Budget this year. I am pleading that we may have some remission of taxation which will help those who need help most, the very poor, the war widow, the old age pensioner, the disabled ex-service man, and others.
One of the reasons why we are asking for this remission of taxation is that a great deal of what these very poor people pay in taxation when purchasing their tea does not find its way into the Exchequer, because the wholesale tea merchants and the grocers all want their profit, not only on the price they pay for the tea, but also on the capital which they have to lay out in payment of the tax. As the number of hands through which the tea passes increases, so the amount increases. The habit of tea drinking appears to increase the further you go down in the social scale. The ill-nourished poor, feeling the need for some stimulant, take tea rather freely. I know of my own knowledge that poor working girls, whose wages are very low, take it with every meal, and, in fact, drink nothing else, so the incidence of taxation is very great on them. We feel
that in the case of working-class families, where there is some need of relief, this Tea Duty puts a greater incidence of taxation on a large family, even though it may be the family of a poor labouring man on unemployment benefit, or even in receipt of Poor Law relief, than on a single person, or on a family with one or two children.
4.0. P.M
It may be said, as has been said in this House, that any remission of the duty would not reach the consumer. That is part of our case against the system which is supported by hon. Members opposite. I was glad to notice that in his Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the old laissez-faire mid-Victorian Radicalism had been superseded by a more businesslike system, and we hope that those who sit behind will follow him. We are not yet, however, prepared to sing our Nunc Dimittis, because we are not quite sure that we are not rather inclined to be like Oliver Twist and ask for more. We believe, if this argument be used, that the whole question shows the immorality of the present system, under which people take to themselves profits which really are immoral from our point of view.
There is one class of workman for whom I want to plead, and on whose behalf I want to repeat one or two arguments that I used two years ago. I refer to the railwaymen. I formed one of a deputation who went to see Lord Rhondda during the War and asked that railwaymen might have a little more generous allowance of tea. He asked me whether I put up the point that tea was food. I said, "No." The point I made was that tea was a stimulant, and I showed him how, as railwaymen, we had found the utmost difficulty in keeping awake young firemen before they had got used to being up all night. I put the point to him that tea was a very fine thing for the purpose. I gave that testimony because I personally had proved it. During the early part of the War I tried, when on the footplate, to quench my thirst with water, but it was not very exhilarating on a winter's night when dashing along on the Scottish express through a snowstorm. I believe even the undergraduates at Oxford, when cramming at night for their examinations, find that tea keeps them awake and enables them to apply themselves better to their studies.
I would like to ask hon. Members whether, when we break up in the autumn and they go north in the express to shoot grouse, they ever consider how much their safety depends upon the fogmen keeping awake. In the autumn we always have fogs, due to the fact that we have warm days and cold nights. The fogman, perhaps, has been at work all day with pick and shovel, and just as he has done his work the call-boy may come for him to go fogging. He has to stand up by the signal and hold up a green light when the signal is at the all-right position. In many places, the only indication that the driver of the train has of his whereabouts is the fog signalman showing his light. Should the fogman fall asleep, there is always the danger of a train with its precious freight running to disaster. It is therefore very necessary that these lowly-paid men should be able to provide themselves with tea in order to keep them awake. The same thing applies to the signalman in his lonely signal-box. I have seen Members doze in this House after they have had or ought to have had a good night's sleep. It is, however, much more difficult for a signalman in a lonely position to keep awake.
It is not as though railwaymen can get a good night's sleep as easily as people in the sheltered neighbourhood of Mayfair. In the daytime, in industrial areas, we have children playing, porters going round with various commodities, and knocks at the door, and, as I said two years ago, it is very difficult to get sleep. More than once I have gone home, after 10 or 12 hours on the footplate, and have never been able to sleep at all. Then I have gone out again, and in the early hours of the morning, when I have been very drowsy, tea has helped to keep me awake.
On behalf of the widows and orphans and the poor, and in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be assisted to give greater social justice, I ask that this duty should be remitted. The remission of the Tea Duty is not likely to flow to the hotels on the Riviera, to the tables of Monte Carlo, or to the tables of the rich. But it would be spent by the poor and the lowly in other necessities. We on these benches believe that what is needed today the world over is a greater purchasing power by the workers. We do
not believe that industry is in need of new capital. We believe that there is capital to spare. Speaking to the cashier of one of the largest engineering firms in Leeds, I asked him if he could do with more business. He replied: "More business? We are not running more than 50 per cent. of our works." They do not need capital; they need customers, and we believe that the way to get customers is to give the workers greater purchasing power, so as to create a demand for the things which the big firms produce. We believe that one way to do that would be to remove this Tea Duty.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
The arguments that have been used for and against the reduction of the Tea Duty have been repeated on the Floor of this House, I suppose, many hundreds of times, but, so long as the Tea Duty remains a part of our fiscal system, so long will it be necessary to repeat at all events the more cogent of these arguments. So far as I have been able to understand it, there have always been two or three outstanding reasons put forward why it was inexpedient or unwise to reduce this duty. One of the main arguments has been that if you reduce very considerably, even to the point of extinction, an important indirect tax like that of the Tea Duty you are passing into the danger zone where the great majority of our wage-earning citizens will not be actually sharing in providing the finances which are necessary from year to year for the maintenance of the life and activities of the State.
It has been urged again and again that it is wise from every conceivable point of view that all citizens, both men and women, should have some direct financial responsibility towards the State, and some direct personal relation with the great concerns of the State. While we may accept that as a sound and wise principle in connection with any form of government and any form of State, yet that principle would not be affected by the remission of the Tea Duty, even if it were remitted altogether. It is perfectly clear that in the last resort the wage-earners of the country do contribute very materially to the revenue of
the State. We know that all taxes in the last resort come from the produce of industry, and hon. Members on all sides of the House will agree that the contributions which the wage-earners make through industry to the national wealth from year to year are by no means reabsorbed by them in wages. Therefore, whatever changes may take place in regard to the duty on tea, the wage-earners will always contribute collectively a very large proportion of the revenue required by the State.
It has also been said that one of the main reasons why the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way still further to reduce the Tea Duty is that it is a tax which is very convenient to collect and of a very productive character. These maxims have been heard again and again to support this particular duty, but I want to suggest that, taken by themselves, they can never be sufficient to justify the continuance of a policy, no matter how old that particular policy may be. We are not justified on grounds of convenience or on grounds of productivity in inflicting this particular Tea Duty on the community. We can see perfectly plainly that the argument of convenience leads to disastrous results when applied in other spheres. For example, it may be convenient to re-elect M. Rault as President of the Saar Valley, on behalf of the League of Nations, for another year, but everybody knows that it works out disastrously in the political practice of the European States. Again, it may, for example, be convenient to throw the whole responsibility for the War on to the shoulders of one particular State, but no one who has studied the whole of the facts will agree that that by itself can be taken as wisdom. I want on the same ground to submit that these two arguments are not sufficient to justify the continuance of the policy of taking millions of pounds from poor people by the imposition of this Tea Duty. I submit that the argument usually put forward for the continuance of the Tea Duty when we want to associate the workers of the country with the financial policy of the State, is that this particular tax is unusually productive and convenient to collect. But these grounds are not sufficient by themselves to justify the continuance of the Tea Duty in the
present Budget. On this side of the House we oppose the Tea Duty, not on grounds of convenience or inconvenience, or whether it is productive or unproductive, but on the ground of a quite definite political principle. When we come to apply the principle of equality of sacrifice in the gathering in of the money for the State, and when we try to work out the idea of placing the burdens of the State upon the citizens of the community in accordance with a definite principle of ability to pay, then we are bound to take exception again and again, and year after year, to this indirect method of taxing the necessities of the people.
In the first place, we say that it is quite impossible, and has proved to be impossible hitherto for the State to enforce indirect charges on tea, and work out any satisfaction whatever on the principle of ability to pay among the consumers. This Tea Duty, which is going to be enforced again this year, imposes a flat rate of 4d. per lb. upon everybody who consumes tea, and it exacts the same 4d. per lb. whatever the price of the tea may be. From that point of view alone, the State is obviously guilty of a very grave act of injustice to those millions of consumers of tea whose purchases are confined to the cheaper brands of tea which are available.
It we look at the matter from a family point of view, the larger the family the bigger the indirect tax which the State inflicts upon those families. When that is assessed, we are face to face with several millions of small acts of injustice. I know it will appear to many hon. Members that these are only very small acts of injustice, but that does not justify their commission, and on the ground of inability in imposing this tax to avoid doing a grave injustice and putting the heaviest burden upon the people who are least able to bear it, I think we have a fundamental and permanent objection to this particular tax. I gather that from time to time a question has been raised as to whether a much larger duty should not be placed upon the higher priced tea, and whether tea selling at 10s. or 8s. a lb. should not have a larger duty, and in that way some of the most tedious objections on the ground of equality of sacrifice could be removed. I think that is a point upon which we might have some further discussion.
In the next place, we take a very grave objection because in this Budget which has conferred very real financial benefit upon certain classes of the community, and if we rule out the hypothetical advantages of the social insurance policy, we find nothing whatever for the benefit of the great mass of wage-earners throughout the country. We feel very strongly that in a Budget in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone out of his way to express sympathy with millionaires, he might have paid some attention to reducing the price of the cups of tea of the poorer members of the community. Further, we take the view that this tax on tea could be removed, following the example set by the Labour Government last year, and we argue that a considerable increase of purchasing power would be placed in the hands of the workers, and that would lead to a direct increase of trade and a corresponding diminution of unemployment. Assuming that the price of tea was reduced and the workers purchased more tea, then we should be compelled to send out more exports to pay for that tea, and in that way we should stimulate home production. If the workers decided not to purchase any more tea than they do at the present time, then the amount of the reduction in the Tea Duty could be spent on other necessities, and the trades supplying those other necessities would receive a definite stimulus as a consequence of the reduction of the tax.
I know many hon. Members opposite will argue that perhaps one of the reasons why the reduction of the tax has not been considered is that if the reduction was made the workers would not receive the benefit of it. The experience of last year's Budget will be pointed to as definite evidence in that direction, and as a definite proof of that contention. Of course, we arc all aware that on the surface of things that contention does seem to have some truth in it, although I think it would be important if we could find out the tax, and obtain a statement as to what would have been the price of tea to-day had there been no reduction of the duty last year. I do not think we are justified in concluding that the price would have been the same, and the balance of argument is in favour of taking the view that if the Tea Duty had not been reduced last year, the workers would have been paying a higher price for their
tea than they are paying at the present time. I quite realise the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the tea trade is in a position in which it is able to make very large exactions from the tea consumers, not only of this country, but of all countries throughout the world. The profits made in the tea industry last year are phenomenally high, and I can quite understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer hesitating when he is confronted with such a formidable body as those engaged in the tea trade.
I find from the reports of tea companies for 1924 published in the "Statist," for example, that the Deamoolic Tea Company, Limited, declared a dividend of no less than 60 per cent and put 20 per cent. of its capital to reserve, and carried forward another 35 per cent. on capital. The Upper Assam Tea Company, I find, increased its capital last year by distributing two new shares for every share held in 1924. It has declared a dividend of 25 per cent. on the new capital, which is equivalent to 75 per cent. on the old capital. The Tara Tea Company—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a proposal to reduce the Tea Duty, and I do not see how the arguments used by the hon. Member are relevant.

Mr. SMITH: I am trying to show the relation between the problem of reducing the tax and conferring the benefit upon the workers of the country, and I have been giving these examples in order to emphasise the difficulties there may be in working out this policy of reducing taxation in order that the workers of the country may benefit. I submit that if objection to this policy of reduction is made on the ground that it is difficult, if not impossible, to prevent any tax reduction finding its way to the great body of consumers, there are other methods which can be adopted. It seems to me not at all a sound or wise proposition to take the view that the only way in which we can prevent tea companies from increasing their prices is to withhold definite benefits from the great mass of the workers through a process of indirect taxation. I submit the point of view that the way to promote a definite
solution of this problem is to increase the amount of tea production, and whatever else does happen, in the long run, no hon. Member can deny that the policy of reducing taxation is calculated to increase the amount of tea purchased throughout the world.
Here we are face to face with two problems, and we have no right on grounds of justice or of fearing the consequences to the tea producers of the world to continue this injustice towards the great mass of wage-earners throughout the country, and we are definitely bound, if we are to work out a sound system of taxation, to try and rid the community of these old and worn out and unscientific methods of raising from the citizens the amount of money required by the State. I suggest that the problem of preventing a rise of prices as a consequence of a tax is quite a separate and distinct question. All hon. Members know that this problem of controlling prices is one of the greatest that confronts us at the present moment. We have had to face it in the case of the housing industry, and I think the Government should be encouraged by realising that there is a party growing up which has another solution of this problem is not one of maintaining these taxes on the earnings of the poor. We are prepared to recommend public control of prices as the ultimate solution of the problems with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is dealing in this Budget.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. R. Smith) said that this subject had been raised upon Ways and Means Resolutions upon hundreds of different occasions in this House, and I should like to pay my tribute to the ingenuity exhibited by him and the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) in finding new arguments upon so old a question. It is the privilege and, indeed, the pleasure of every Opposition to open our Debates at this stage of the Budget by moving for a lesser burden on the taxpayers of the country, and it is always easy to take the necessarily limited remissions of taxation which have been announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to argue that he might have shown a wiser choice. I am sure that we on this side of the House
have often voted, when we have been in Opposition, for the same kind of Amendment which has been put forward to-day, and if we vote in the contrary sense on this occasion, we have the satisfaction of feeling that we can do so with complete consistency, because Budgets must be considered as a whole, and it is in no way to condemn the alternative proposals on their merits to say that we are obliged to limit our support to those remissions of taxation which are within our financial power and in accordance with the general policy proclaimed by the Government.
The hon. Member for Penistone, and I think also the hon. Member for South Leeds, suggested that it was due to the indirect taxpayer to give a certain remission. I think the indirect taxpayer has done pretty well, all things considered. Before the War he was paying 42½ per cent. of the total of tax revenue; in this Budget he will only pay 34 per cent. But that is not the whole story. One must not merely consider the burdens of direct as compared with indirect taxation, but must remember that year by year, and most of all this year, the benefits of social legislation are more and more being extended to those classes which for the most part only contribute by indirect means to the Exchequer. The Tea Duty is one which is of great value to any Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of its very wide incidence. Those other duties on more fortifying types of beverage are only paid by limited sections of the community, whereas as hon. Members opposite have pointed out, the Tea Duty—.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: What is the more fortifying beverage of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks?

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member is, I know, an expert on the more fortifying types of dutiable liquor, and it is, no doubt, largely due to the warnings which he has uttered that so many of the community leave the burden of the taxation on these particular classes of exciseable liquor to a smaller section of the population than bears the burden of the Tea Duty. Of course, in the case of any duty so wide in its incidence as the Tea Duty, any reduction is necessarily popular, and that popularity is, I think, reflected in the very favourable treatment which the Tea Duty has received in succeeding Budgets since the
War. In our War-time Budgets the duty on this article was raised from 5d. to 1s. per lb. In the first Budget after the War, an Imperial Preference of one-sixth was applied to the Tea Duty, reducing it from 1s. to 10d.; and, as we draw nine-tenths of our tea supply from Empire sources, it will be seen that this was, in effect, a reduction of the effective rate by 2d. In 1922, a further reduction took place to 8d. as the standard rate, or 6¾d. as the five-sixths preferential rate. Last year, again, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer further reduced the duty to 4d., or 3⅓d. in the case of Empire tea. The result that tea is now paying a lower import duty than it did before the War.
The hon. Member for South Leeds made a good deal of the necessity of tea to those in receipt of low wages, and he instanced the workers on the railways; but he did not mention that, while the Tea Duty is lower than it was before the War, their wages are considerably higher than they were at that period. The hon. Member for Penistone asked whether the duty had been passed on, and I think he wanted to know what would have been the movements of prices if the remission last year had not taken place. As the late Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, that is a very large and very difficult subject. The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks it is as easy as A, B, C. I do not profess to the same economic omniscience, but I do not want to say anything controversial. I agree that last year the remission of duty was, at the time of the change, passed on to the consumer, but at the present time the consumer is no longer enjoying that full remission. The average prices, both of the more costly blends of tea and also of the more popular blends, are only about 1d. less than they were before the Budget was announced last year. I think it is a matter of difficulty to say dogmatically whether the rise in price has taken place owing to the increased demand for tea brought about by the Budget reduction last year, or whether the increase in price has taken place owing to the decrease of supply; but I do feel that under present conditions, where admittedly there is a short supply, a further decrease in the import duty, on a short market, is likely to bring about such an increase in demand as to cause a quite disproportionate movement upwards in prices.
Of course, the really important point in this matter, from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is what the proposed remission would cost. In the present financial year, the proposal of the hon. Members would involve us in a loss of £3,000,000 of revenue, and in a full lnancial year it would involve us in a loss of £4,200,000. But that is, not the whole story, because it is an accepted principle that the duties on coffee, on chicory, and on cocoa vary directly with the level of the Tea Duty, and on that account we should make a further loss in the current year of £500,000, rising to £700,000 in a full year. The House will see that, quite apart from all other reasons, we are, therefore, unable to accept a proposed remission of duty, which would involve the Exchequer in a loss of nearly £5,000,000 in a full year, and which in the first year would be so serious in its effect as completely to upset the balance of the Budget.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been very much on the lines of the speeches of representatives of the Treasury in previous years when reductions of this duty have been moved from this bench. In speaking on that point, the right hon. Gentleman said that Oppositions were always in the habit of leading off the Debates on the Budget with a demand for a reduction of the Tea Duty. I think his memory is a little short as to what has been the annual practice, say, when his own party have begin in Opposition. I have not noticed that they have been completely consistent, when they have been in Opposition, in asking for reductions of the Tea Duty.

Mr. GUINNESS: Time after time the Conservative party have moved for an Imperial Preference in the Tea Duty, and, as hon. Members opposite must know, where you get nine-tenths of your tea from Empire sources, that is tantamount to a reduction of the duty.

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is just the point I was coming to when the right hon. Gentleman interjected. They have repeatedly moved Motions as regards Imperial Preference, but, as a fact, those Motions would never have had any real effect upon the consumer. I do not think
it has ever been demonstrated, from the history of the markets, although 90 per cent. of our tea comes from within the Empire, that that has had any other effect than that the calculations have always been based upon the full standard rate of duty included in the fiscal policy of the year concerned. There is a point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in the early part of his speech which is of great importance. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) thought that this was not, perhaps, the most suitable occasion to draw attention to the difference in burden borne by indirect and by direct taxation, but he will notice that the Financial Secretary himself has raised the issue by drawing attention to the fact that, before the War, the proportion paid by indirect taxation was 42½ per cent., and he now says that this year the figure is down to 34 per cent. I think, however, that if he takes a careful view of the Budget statement this year, he will find that it is rather more than 37 per cent. if he takes the whole of the taxes raised from indirect sources. On this point it has been stated again and again in the last few years that there ought to be a move towards the pre-War figures—somewhere near, as some Members have said, to a parity of 50/50.
The view of myself, and, I think, of my hon. Friends on this side, is that there is nothing really sound about that argument as to the relation between indirect and direct taxation. After all, taxation must be, if it is to be sound, upon a really equitable basis; in other words, it must be placed upon the citizen in relation to his ability to pay; and I think it is beyond question that the bulk of indirect taxation falls to be collected, in the main, from the poorer classes of the community. Moreover, in comparing the percentage of revenue now obtained from direct taxation with the yields from that source in pre-War days, it must be remembered that without doubt the result of the Great War, and also, one might say, of all previous wars, has been to fulfil the statement of one of the great economists of the nineteenth century. that war always makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. I support that as being the present position with two statements. First of all, there is the Report of the Committee on War Wealth, which stated that a comparatively small number
in the community increased their pre-War wealth by not less than £4,000,000,000; and, secondly, I would remind the Financial Secretary of the point made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, that in the year in which the assessment of tax covered, on the three years' average, the worst three years we have yet had, the increased yield from Estate Duty, Income Tax and Super-tax was over £14,000,000—further evidence that the effect of the War has been to make the rich richer, and we might say from other evidence the poor poorer. In these circumstances it is surely unreasonable to suggest a return to anything like the pre-War distribution of taxation as between direct and indirect taxation. That was recognised and acted upon by the Government who were responsible for raising the special finance for prosecuting the War, for if the right hon. Gentleman will go back to the year 1917-18 he will find that the proportion of indirect taxation was not 42½ per cent. nor 37.3 per cent. as it will be this year, but only 17 per cent. Although, as I have demonstrated, the rich have been getting richer and the poor poorer, what has happened since 1917-18 is that always, with the exception of last year, the proportion rte burden upon the indirect taxpayer has, speaking generally, been increasing instead of decreasing. In regard to the fact that the percentage of indirect taxation is to be increased in this Budget, that is further emphasised by the fact that this year you are actually going to raise in taxation for Budget purposes £1,000,000 more than was raised last year, so that the actual burden upon the indirect taxpayer is much worse than last year.
The general case for the relief of consumers of tea has been very well put by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment and I need not dwell on that, but I desire to refer specifically to the statement of the Chancellor last week that the remission made by my right hon. Friend last year has been almost entirely extinguished by larger price movements in the world market and the Financial Secretary, though he has not been quite so emphatic as the Chancellor, has repeated that statement to-day. My right hon. Friend said it was not a difficult matter to prove the contrary, nor do I think it is.
It is quite simple. The wholesale price of tea is not a fixed figure and if the duty had not been reduced by 4d., whatever the economic price of tea to-day might be the price to the consumer would have been 4d. more than it actually is. So the consumer of tea has gained very substantially as the result of the action taken by the late Government, even allowing for world price movements. The right hon. Gentleman thought the market to-day would show that practically the whole of the amount remitted last year had disappeared in the price movements. Let me point out how the consumer has benefited. In the first place, as soon as the remission was announced in last year's Budget the whole trade reduced the price by 4d.—that is the standard rate—although by doing so they would lose two-thirds of a penny per lb. on 90 per cent. of their actual output and sales, and the consumer benefited in that way. Then the argument that the rise in the price of the commodity had almost entirely extinguished the benefit of the remission is not borne out by the actual movement of prices. If you were to take the average price of tea, as given by the trade statistics, for the whole of 1924 you would not find that the wholesale price, which was 1s. 6d., had risen during the whole of that period to 1s. 10d. As a matter of fact the approximate average price for 1924 was 1s. 8d., and if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the average price of tea to-day he will find that last week the price was actually slightly less on the wholesale market than 1s. 5d., as compared with the figure of 1s. 6d. when my right hon. Friend reduced the tax last year.
Although there have been large price movements, and therefore at some periods heavy increases to the consumer, taking the whole year and taking into view the present position of the wholesale tea market, not only has the consumer gained during the past financial year, but he now stands to gain the whole reduction of duty which was given by my right hon. Friend this year. I think it ought to be said also that there were two factors in regard to the heavy wholesale market price movements during the year. One to which the Financial Secretary referred was the estimated shortage of supply in relation to what the anticipated demand was, but I think the more im-
portant factor was that very large firms in the trade were engaged, actually two or three months before my right hon. Friend framed his Budget, in making very heavy purchases of crops still growing, to keep tea off the market at their discretion and create something of the nature of a "corner." While I am not going in detail into that, I think I could demonstrate, if I had the time, that that was the main reason for the heavy fluctuation in the tea market during the year. Those who in any way try to make a corner in food supplies usually get caught out, and the fact that they were up against the world tea trade, and in this country were up against a great consumers' organisation, has now brought that corner to be of none effect. I think it is true to say, therefore, that, in spite of these movements in the wholesale market, to a large extent the consumer has benefited by the Budget reduction of last year and, it is clear, will now continue to benefit. Nor is there any doubt in my mind nor in the mind of my right hon. Friend that a further reduction, as asked for in the Amendment, on this important article in the diet of the people would result in direct relief to the great body of working-class consumers.
There is one smaller point to which I should like to direct attention. No doubt the Financial Secretary has studied, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Budget of the Irish Free State. In that Budget this tax and the other taxes which depend so much upon it have been entirely abolished. We have noticed lately on these benches that the Chancellor has been filled with tender solicitude for Northern Ireland. He has, for example, introduced a supplementary Estimate, and got it through the House, making them a grant which we regarded as a political grant, which my right hon. Friend refused last year. I wonder whether the Chancellor's solicitude for Ulster is not going to extend beyond such matters as the special constabulary to the traders and consumers in Ulster. I do not know what his advice is from his own Customs officials, but I imagine that there will be large quantities of non-dutiable tea in the Free State and a pretty good proportion of it may find
its way over the border into Ulster. Is he going to lose any money in the Customs in that direction, and is he going to do anything to help the traders of Ulster to meet the competition which will arise? Does he know that a great part of the tea trade in the Free State, especially on the West Coast, has for years been in the hands of Ulster houses, and that now they will be in the position of having to compete with the non-dutiable tea of the Irish Free State? I should like to be clear on the point. I think thereis great substance in it. Is he not going, following the line of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the special constabulary, to help them by putting us here on the same basis as the Free State and see that they get equal treatment in regard to the tax upon tea? Another question I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether he has inquired what will be the effect upon the London Tea Market of the total remission of the duty on tea in the Irish Free State. Does it mean that in effect a good deal of the Irish Free State purchases will be diverted from the London market? Surely that is not a thing he desires. Having regard to the close proximity of the Free State and the way in which our trade has been bound up, I suggest that there is ground for looking into the matter and seeing if he cannot bring us into line with the decision and practice of the Free State in this matter.
We should judge the retention of this duty by what is the standard of a good tax. Such a tax, we think, should be equitable, it should be economic, it should be productive, and it should not fall upon the necessities of life. The duty upon tea, which we are asking the House to reduce, does not comply with any one of these conditions. It is certainly not equitable. That has been demonstrated by the mover and seconder of the Amendment. It is not upon an ad valorem basis and therefore it presses most hardly upon the poorest people, who use the cheapest kind of tea. It certainly is not economic for it is quite certain that the consumer does not only pay the duty but pays a good deal more—the financing of the duty and the profit added from stage to stage. The process of collection makes that, I think, absolutely inevitable. It is not now really very productive. The right hon. Gentleman says he will only lose in
a full year £4,250,000. He will only lose this year £3,000,000. He suggests—it is an old device of Chancellors and Secretaries to the Treasury—that when we come to debate in detail an Amendment like this we must consider the Budget as a whole and must not be led off by an Amendment here and an Amendment there. I thought it was usual for Chancellors, in framing a Budget, to allow themselves a margin here and there so that they might meet the best claims, or perhaps sometimes the most, insistent claims, for varying the Budget provisions. I think the Financial Secretary ought to advise the Chancellor that here is one of the special claims of the mass of consumers in which, out of that margin which he no doubt set himself in framing his Budget, he might give some concession. I hope before we go to a division the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor will give us his real view—I do not think the Financial Secretary has inquired very closely into it—of price movements in relation to the duty last year, and will also tell us as to the position in relation to the Free State.

5.0. P.M

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The last speaker has expressed anxiety about what was to happen in the Irish Free State, where tea is going to be free of duty. As I understand the habits of the people of the Irish Free State, there is very little tea consumed. They prefer to live on Dublin porter. The Seconder of the Amendment gave figures of the profits of tea companies. I know that to earn a profit is a very serious offence to hon. Members opposite. Universal bankruptcy is their motto. If there is one way likely to increase the profits of the tea manufacturers, it would be to raise the Duty. The more the Duty is raised the bigger the profits and the larger the dividends. The way to bring about a moderate state of earning would be to abolish the Duty altogether, and then things would find an economic level. The Proposer of the Amendment supplied the true reason for not supporting his own Amendment. He was very honest. He said that tea was a stimulant. I expected that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) under those circumstances would propose that tea should not be permitted to be sold. I agree that tea is a stimulant, and it is a dangerous stimulant if taken in excessive quantities. I do not think
there is anything more likely to cause dyspepsia than tea taken in large quantities. That was admitted by the Proposer of the Amendment, because he said that in order to keep the men awake on the railway engines it was the practice to give them tea. That means that they were kept awake by indigestion. That is the true explanation.
Nothing has done more to produce chronic dyspepsia than the habit of drinking unlimited quantities of tea. The devastation caused by the excessive drinking of tea, by the keeping of the teapot standing on the hob and drinking tea excessively under those circumstances, has done more harm than all the alcohol that has been consumed. It would he well that people should be taught the dangers of this particular commodity of tea. When one analyses the taxation upon this particular commodity, I should like to know where the hardship comes in. It is infinitesimal. I am medically advised that the amount of tea that any person can safely take in one day is a couple of breakfast cups. Any more than that is liable to be injurious to health.

Mr. HARDIE: What takes its place?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I could recommend it to some of the hon. Member's friends. I am advised by persons engaged in the distributing of tea that you can get 120 cups out of one pound of tea. The Proposer and Seconder of the Amendment, like the last speaker, are wrong when they say that the working classes buy the cheapest tea. The working classes buy the very best tea. Nobody pays more for tea than the British working woman. It is when you go to the houses of the wealthy and the great that you get the cheap stuff. If you get 120 cups of tea from one pound of tea, three pounds of tea will supply you with 360 cups of tea. Six pounds of tea per year is enough to supply each person in the community. The total duty that person would pay on the six pounds of tea would. be 2s., which is a great deal less than is extracted from the working classes per head by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for the specific purpose of supporting their own political ambitions.
I cannot, understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite, many of whose
constituents do not approve of their views. The hon. Member for Dundee is the only consistent Prohibitionist in this country. He told the people of Dundee that he would not go into partnership with anything so infamous as the drink trade, and therefore he would remove all the duties on exciseable liquors and prohibit them altogether. Thereupon the people of Dundee said, "This is the manfor us. He will take off the duties; therefore we shall then be able to buy the liquors cheap." The bootleggers also saw their opportunity and joined in and said "Amen." That is why we have the benefit of the hon. Member's presence here to-day. The man who drinks a pint of beer pays as much tax as the person who drinks 120 cups of tea. The man who drinks one glass of whisky pays as much tax as the man who drinks 250 cups of tea. The discrepancy and injustice is so great that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to make any modification, he should direct his attention to something else than this very small Duty on tea. With these expressions of opinion, with which I am sure the vast mass of the people cordially agree. I express my disapproval of the Amendment.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We know now from the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) what is the cause of the evils that afflict this country. Oscar Wilde said that drink was the curse of the working classes, but we are now told by the hon. Member that it is tea that is the curse of the people. Every crime that is committed by a man is committed under the influence of tea I What a large number of men there are who have murdered their best friends and their wives under the influence of more than two breakfast cups of tea per day! If the hon. Member seriously believes that all these terrible evils come from tea, why does not he protest against the lowness of the tax? We taxed tea at the rate of 1s. per pound when the War ended. Why was not that kept on? Why does not the hon. Member try to prevent the use of tea altogether? Why does not he regulate it as we regulate opium?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Tea lost us America.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member says that tea lost us
America. It was the taxation on tea that lost us America. We want to remove that taxation. There is a great campaign going on to convert America to tea drinking, for the benefit of the British Empire and the British tea merchants. We may see very great events arising if 110,000,000 of people who are, fortunately, prohibited from drinking the awful concoctions that go out from Glasgow and other parts of Scotland, and who, owing to the beneficent efforts of the anti-bootlegging brigade, are turning to drinking large quantities of tea. In that event, our tea trade will benefit extraordinarily. I hope that the remarks of the hon. Member insulting this beverage, which has been such a comfort to mankind, will not find their way across the Atlantic and stop the growth of tea drinking, a habit which will be very valuable to British trade.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury twitted the hon. Member who moved the Amendment for drawing attention to railwaymen, and the necessity of tea for the railwaymen. He referred to the railwaymen's wages. What has the railwayman to pay for tea today? It is doubtful whether the railwaymen are much better off as regards the household budget than they were before. The keenest buyers amongst the wives of the railwaymen dispute the index figures provided by the Government Department. I am not speaking for my party on this subject, but for a few of my friends who intend to vote for this reduction. This is the sixth time that I have had the honour of speaking in this House in favour of the reduction on the Tea Duty. I spoke on the last Budget on this subject, but I was asked by the Whips, and by my distinguished leaders, not to press the matter to a Division, because we got so many benefits from the Budget last year that it was a pity to try to upset it. That does not apply to-day. We consider that we do not get any real benefit from the present Budget. Therefore, there is no argument for not trying to lop a little bit off by reducing the Tea Duty.
The indirect taxpayers have no benefits from this Budget. It was said of the last Budget that the breakfast table taxes were reduced, and that the indirect taxpayer had benefited tremendously; therefore the proposal in this Budget is to
redress the balance and to reduce Income Tax and Super-tax. Of course, the Super-tax payer and the Income Tax payer is an indirect taxpayer as a consumer of tea. It would be a very bad thing if successive Governments tried to weight taxes in favour of one class of the community. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear! "] I am glad I have approval from the other side of the House. It is much better to try to keep the scale even. It must be admitted, however, that in this Budget an attempt has been made to redress the effect of last year's Budget. No attempt is made to relieve taxation by a reduction of the duties on tea, tobacco and the exciseable commodities which are consumed. It would be much better and more just to consider whether something could not be done for the indirect taxpayer in this way.
The argument was frequently used in the old days, but not perhaps so much in recent years, that tea is a luxury and, therefore, a fit subject for taxation. It is very doubtful whether tea can be considered a luxury. I think it is a necessity for very many people. Large classes of brain workers need tea. People who have to work at night, including sailors and people who work on engines, certainly require it. It is no luxury to them. It cannot be called a luxury to the old age pensioners and people of that sort. If the Government want to tax a luxury, why do not they put a tax upon things of great value that are imported, and are pure luxuries? I asked a question yesterday about the value of furs imported. Last year we imported furs and fur clothing to the value of £13,500,000. We also imported last year from South Africa diamonds to the value of £6,500,000, and other precious stones to the value of £300,000. Feathers and plumage were imported last year to the value of just under £1,000,000. Diamonds and other precious stones, feathers and plumage are all luxuries, and not necessary to anyone except, perhaps, the bookmaking fraternity, who want diamonds in order to impress the mugs. They may require diamonds, but nobody else needs them. All these luxury articles were imported to the value of £20,000,000 last year. A tax of 33⅓ per cent on these commodities would bring in between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000, and that would enable us to take off the Tea Duties altogether.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is the hon. and gallant Member speaking for his party or for himself?

Captain BENN: For what party is the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) speaking?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My hon. and gallant Friend knows that sometimes I am a little ahead of my party. I speak for some of them, at any rate. The price of tea is very high to-day, and it is economically unsound to put a tax on it. The non-passing on to the consumer of the remission of last year has been dealt with already. What the Government are going to do, though it does not appear in the Budget, is to put a very serious direct tax on wage earners of 4d. a week under the new insurance proposals. Suppose the average working-class family of six persons consume half a pound of tea a week, the tax which they pay is about 2d. per week, but if a man is in employment he has to pay 4d. a week under the proposed insurance scheme. This would be a very good way of meeting the charge, which is very much resented by the industrial workers, by trade unionists, working men and women, and employers. They are all equally united in opposition. But for this purpose I think that it would be a very good set-off against the new impost on the wage earners if this Amendment were accepted. I am sorry that I could not have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of Preference. I live for the day to hear him standing at that box and defending Imperial Preference. It does not seem to have done much good to the tea producers of the Empire. The consumption of China tea is remarkably steady. It has not decreased, whereas the imports of tea from Java and other countries, whose tea is cheaper than Empire tea, are actually increasing, so that Preference has not worked to benefit the Empire, but merely to swell the heavy profits of these other tea-producing countries. For all these reasons I hope that my hon. Friend will support me in the Lobby.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: My position is that we are doing a gross injustice to the body of the people, to the toilers of the country, by imposing taxation on that which they consider to be a legitimate requirement. According to the view of the hon. and learned Member for Argyle (Mr. Macquisten) the tax upon
beer is a tax upon a requisite and so is the tax on whisky, and all the other alcoholic stimulants. If these articles are essential it is not right to impose taxation upon them, and they ought to remain perfectly free to be sold in the same way as any other commodity. But if we turn to the question of tea, which we are specially considering this afternoon, we are considering an article which, without any jocularity, is a growing factor among the requirements of the general body of the public. It is a very gratifying fact, notwithstanding the jocular references of the hon. Member, that many of the community who formerly would not do without what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury described as more fortifying liquor, business men and thinking men, are going to-day to the tea shops, those despicable institutions into which, it is appalling to think, it is possible to take children, while it is impossible to take children into the respectable institutions so closely identified with the hon. Member for Argyll. The hon. and learned Member sheds tears because the children are left at the doors of these institutions in which the more fortifying liquors are sold, because that handicaps the parents in supporting the business which he so much appreciates.
With regard to tea these business men are finding out that for clear thinking and the carrying on of business with aptitude, skill and effective results, they can do much better by taking that which unquestionably is a stimulant, but which is a stimulating food. It is an article which gives the requisite incentive for carrying on the duties of everyday life, and it has been recognised as an essential for helping the people to carry on. Coming to the particular point dealt with by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, it is an unfortunate fact that, owing to the requirements of industrial life, many workers are obliged to resort unduly to the use of tea. When they should have the opportunity of partaking of foodstuffs of a more effective building up character they do not find facilities for that. They have to hurry home and get the kettle boiling and take some tea, and something along with it, and it is a sort of shove-off as we put it colloquially. Then we have the extraordinary appeals, made by those engaged in the liquor trade,
that the workers cannot obtain sufficient supplies of those more fortifying liquors which are necessary, and they call upon the Government to reduce the taxation, and they introduce the idea that it is hardly possible now for an ordinary publican to make a living. Of course the publican never makes a living. He is dying in the business. He dies off more rapidly than the man engaged in any other business in the country. That is shown by the statistics of insurance organisations. Even though the man behind the bar be an abstainer he has not such a good chance of longevity, and is not considered so good from the point of view of insurance as men in other occupations.

Sir H. CROFT: May I ask, Sir, what Resolution we are now discussing?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER(Captain Fitzroy): We are dealing with the Tea Duty.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I quite realise the difficulty, but the hon. and learned Member for Argyll got some latitude, or, if I may say so, some licence. I do not want to take up time unduly. I only want to give the hon. Member something to keep him going, and the next time I will give him more.

Mr J0HNSTON: I should not like the House to believe that the speech delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll was typical of his record. What he fired off this evening was a portion of one of his celebrated "No-licence" orations with which he toured Scotland during the past two or three years, though he left out, it is true, the part about the men who eat meat digging their graves with their own teeth, and other perorations which are used for the people in Scotland. But when he went on to say that the injury to the human body due to tea drinking was far greater than the injury to the human body due to the consumption of alcohol, I think that he was stretching even his well-known reputation for exaggeration on the platform. An hon. Member on my left apparently treated the hon. and learned Member for Argyll, with regard to the injury caused by tea drinking, quite seriously. I have not heard of tea drinking sending men to the poor house. I have most of the statistics which the hon. Member has got, and I do not know of any statistics which show
that tea drinking leads to a breach of the peace.
I know of no statistics which show that when men are engaging motor drivers they insist that they shall not be tea drinkers; but I do know that there are innumerable instances of men, engaged as motor drivers or chaffeurs, whose employers stipulate that they shall not drink the commodity, which is so largely produced in Argyllshire, of which the hon. and learned Member is a supporter. Further, regarding the injury to the human frame. It is true, I believe, that the hon. and learned Member is correct in saying that continual overdoses of tea will tan the stomach. Over-indulgence in anything is bad, but I have never heard of tea discolouring the nasal organs of people, at least to the same extent as whisky or other alcohol discolours those of so many supporters of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll. I do not quite follow the argument of the hon. and learned Member. He said that a high duty meant high profits. He supports a high duty. Therefore, we may take it that when he next goes to Argyllshire we are quite in order in telling the electors that the hon. and learned Member is in favour of high profits on tea.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: High profits for everybody.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. and learned Member did not say that; that is an addendum. In his speech this afternoon the hon. and learned Member argued in favour of high profits for those who were engaged in the tea industry.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I pointed out that if you had high taxation in any commodity those who were engaged made big profits.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not think that I have misrepresented the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that a high duty meant high profits. He is in favour of the high duty, and, therefore, he is in favour of the high profit. I trust that when he goes amongst the poor men and women of Argyllshire he will explain why it is that he made a speech here in favour of high profits upon tea. At any rate, some of us will be at considerable pains to remind his electors of the point. The hon. and learned Member also said that the cheap teas were consumed at the ducal mansions.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I said the mansions of the wealthy.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I withdraw the word "ducal." It is only the exceedingly rich with whom the hon. and learned Member is acquainted; he does not know anything about dukes. He says it is the very rich who drink the cheap teas. They go in for the sweepings. The poor in the slums we can see coming out from the slums to buy China tea at 5s. and 6s. a pound. I can only say that if that is his experience of the poorest of the poor and of the very rich, it differs considerably from the experience of every other observer of the social habits of the people. The hon. and learned Member also stated that the Mover of the Amendment, a railwayman, had said that engine drivers took some tea in order to keep them awake, and this was regarded evidently as a matter for hostile comment. The commodities, a larger consumption of which the hon. and learned Member urges, do not keep you awake; they are soporific drugs; and I am certain that, whatever be the opinion of hon. Members regarding the comparative merits of alcohol and tea, there is no one who travels on the railways who would, like the hon. and learned Member for Argyll, urge that engine drivers should be encouraged to consume alcohol, at least when they are in charge of the lives of the people.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I did not make that remark. That is an invention of the hon. Member.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I did not state that the hon. and learned Member had said so. I said that, whatever might be the differences of opinion in this House regarding the relative merits of the alcohol, a large consumption of which he urges, and tea, which we would prefer to see consumed, at any rate there would be no difference of opinion in this House on this point—that we ought not to encourage engine drivers to drink alcohol, and there would be a general consensus of opinion that it would be better for them to drink tea.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I concur. I prefer that the driver should drink tea and have indigestion.

Mr. JOHNSTON: This Socratic dialogue has its advantages. In future discussions of this subject in Scotland, we shall be able to quote the hon. and learned
Member as a distinguished though somewhat belated convert to the idea that it is far better for those who are in charge of the lives of the people to drink tea instead of alcohol.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: We have had only one spokesman so far from these benches, and I submit that in a matter of this importance it is only natural that Liberals should support this Amendment, following the best traditions of Gladstonian finance—the tradition of a free breakfast table for the people. I wish with others to enter my protest against the fact that this Budget does nothing for the indirect taxpayer. I think I am correct in saying that this is the first time for many years that the indirect taxpayer has not benefited from the Budget. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury contrasted the percentage of taxation paid by the indirect taxpayer before the War with what he pays now. Before the War it was 42 per cent.; to-day it is 34 per cent., or, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) suggested, nearly 37 per cent. Though there might have been this slight fall, we cannot get away from the fact that before the War the indirect taxpayer was bearing more than his share of the burden of the finances of the country. When you realise that in the great majority of cases the wages of our people are worth less to-day in purchasing power than they were before the War, you realise also that the burden of indirect taxation is heavier now than it was at that time. In many of the large industries, especially the depressed industries, iron and steel and coal, the percentage rise in wages is between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. as compared with wages before the War, but the cost of food has increased by something like 70 per cent. Therefore, there is a just claim that the indirect taxpayer should have some relief.
Reference has been made to the added burden thrown upon the industrial worker by the pension scheme adumbrated by the Chancellor of Exchequer. In addition to that, since the War the Unemployment Insurance contributions have been increased by 4d. per week, adding a very considerable burden to the industrial worker. The worker's weekly budget is heavily handicapped by this indirect taxa-
tion. We must try to realise what it means in the budget of the ordinary worker who gets from 30s. to 40s. a week. I submit that we have a right to claim that when the Chancellor of Exchequer is giving largesse to Super-tax and Income Tax payers, the industrial worker should have some consideration. At a time when unemployment is so rife and wages are so low, it is not fair that the Super-tax payer should enjoy the benefit of the millions which the Chancellor of Exchequer is distributing, and that the industrial worker should not receive any relief. Alternative methods of taxation have been suggested. There are luxuries which could be taxed, such as diamonds and furs, so as to give relief to the industrial worker. It is wishing against hope, no doubt, and but for that fact I would say that I trust that the Chancellor of Exchequer may even yet see his way to give some relief to the workers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide! "]

Captain BENN: Hon. Members opposite would do well to restrain their impatience, because there are some Members of the House who intend to fight this Budget, and to fight it at every stage. I propose to draw attention to the very heavy charge not only of this duty but of much of the indirect taxation upon articles of food, which is, in fact, imposed upon the working-class household. I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is such a new-found friend of Imperial Preference, could have seen, in reference to a commodity which comes mostly from Empire sources, another opportunity of remitting taxation. But he has not done that. He reserves that for other things, and insists on maintaining the Tea Duty at 4d., the same as last year, upon what is an essential food. Tea is a necessary food. Everybody, who knows anything about the way in which people in humble circumstances live, knows that a teapot is on the hob all day long. It provides the man with a cup of tea before he goes to work in the morning, and all day long it is there to provide tea for the mother and the children. It is not, perhaps, as good as it might be, but it is one of the chief articles of consumption. What hon. Members sometimes overlook is the fact that you must not consider the burden of these indirect taxes in relation to the total income or wage of a worker. You have to consider the
margin that he has to spare for taxation. Looked at in that way, the burden of these taxes—.

Sir H. CROFT: How was it that the party of the hon. and gallant Gentleman resisted all the reductions on Empire products when we discussed them last year?

Captain BENN: The hon. and gallant Member is the head and sole membership of a party, and he always resents any taunts about the condition of that party. He asks me to embark on a Debate which the Deputy-Speaker would prevent at once, if I started it. We shall discuss the question of Empire Preference when it arises on the Finance Bill. In the meantime this burden of indirect taxation must be regarded in relation to the taxable margin which is available in a working-class budget. What is that margin? Take an engineer earning 47s. a week. First of all, he must have a house to live in. Often he has to pay an excessive price for it. He must have food for himself, his wife and his children; he must have clothes, he must pay his club subscription if he belongs to a friendly society and he must pay his insurance contributions. He must have some margin for the pictures. [Laughter.] I see nothing humorous about that statement. One of the hon. Gentleman opposite who is laughing is an entertainer himself, and he should not seek to deprive the working class of the harmless joys of the silent stage. These charges absorb a very large proportion, if not the whole, and sometimes perhaps more, than the whole of the very slender wage earned by these people. What has such a man to pay in indirect taxation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has money for the Super-tax payer and for the Income Tax payer and for the fighting Services?

Mr. ERSKINE: And who has put on higher Death Duties.

Captain BENN: The hon. Member speaks feelingly. Such a man as I

describe has to pay a tax on tea. If he consumes spirits or beer he has to pay heavy taxation on those commodities; he has to pay a very heavy tax on tobacco which is also a necessary; he has to pay a tax on sugar, and now there will be the new insurance stamps. His daughters have to pay a tax on such harmless and cheap luxuries or adornments as they care to purchase in the nature of artificial silk. When these sums are added together it will be found that the tax on such a man is more like 10s. or 12s. Income Tax than the sort of light tax which hon. Gentlemen opposite would represent it to be. [HON. MEMBERS: "No ! "] I do not knew if hon. Gentlemen opposite have really seized my point. The point is that we must regard indirect taxation in comparison with the margin which a man has available to meet taxation after providing himself with the necessaries of existence. We find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing an 8s., 10s., and even a 12s. tax on the incomes of such people as I have described. As we know, there is plenty of money. There are the Death Duties to which the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) has just referred which are going to be increased, and the Estimates could be reduced. Last year I hesitated to vote for this Amendment, because the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was snaking great remissions, and he had not the opportunity of the present Chancellor to find the money. Therefore, on the ground of responsibility I did not then vote for this Amendment. At the same time, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year has failed to reduce taxation, has found new sources of taxation and is letting off rich people all the way round, I think the least this House can do is to vote for this simple reduction on an article of universal working-class consumption.

Question put, "That the word ' four-pence ' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 151.

Division No. 82.]
AYES.
[5.50 p.m.


Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ashmead Bartlett, E.
Beamish, Captain T.P.H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Astbury, Lieut. Commander F. W.
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Atholl, Duchess of
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.


Albery, Irving James
Atkinson, C.
Benn, Sir A.S. (Plymouth, Drake)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bennett, A.J.


Applin, Colonel R.V.K.
Barclay Harvey, C. M.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish


Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Berry, Sir George


Bethell, A.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.
Mason, Lieut. Col. Glyn K.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Meller, R. J.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, F. B.


Blundell, F. N.
Gates, Percy
Meyer, Sir Frank


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gauit, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gee, Captain R.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brass, Captain W.
Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.


Briggs, J. Harold
Grace, John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Brittain, Sir Harry
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.
 Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Morrison Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Brooke, Brigadler General C. R. I.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville, R. J.


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hanbury, C.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Bullock, Captain M.
Harland, A.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Oakley, T.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby Gore, Hon. William


Cassels, J. D.
Haslam, Henry C.
Pennefather, Sir John


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hawke, John Anthony
Penny, Frederick George


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)
Headlam, Lieut. Colonel C. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Perring, William George


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henderson, Lieut. Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Heneage, Lieut. Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Ladywood)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pilcher, G.


Chapman, Sir S.
Henniker Hughan, Vice Adm. Sir A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Charteris, Brigadier General J.
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton


Christie, J. A.
Hilton, Cecil
Preston, William


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hoare, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Radford, E. A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Raine W


Clarry, Reginald George
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ramsden, E.


Clayton, G. C.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Homan, C. W. J.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C.(Warrington)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Capt. A. 0. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cockerill, Brigadier General G. K.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remnant, Sir James


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rentoul, G. S.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Couper, J. B.
Hunter Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Huntingfield, Lord
Ropner, Major L.


Courthope, Lieut. Col. George L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Mldl'n & P'bl's)
Rye, F. G.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Salmon, Major I.


Croft, Brigadier General Sir H.
Jackson, Lieut. Colonsi Hon. F. S.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crook, C. W.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jacob, A. E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Savery, S. S.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Kidd, J. (Linilthgow)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, Lt. Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinlcch Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Dalziel,Sir Davison
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sheffield,Sir Krkeley


Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lamb, J. Q.
Shepperson, E. W.


Davidson, Major General Sir J. H.
 Lane Fox, Colonel George R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Locker Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Smith Carington, Neville W.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loder, J. de V.
Smithers, Waldron


Dawson, Sir Philin
Lougher, L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Lucas Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Drewe, C.
Luce, Major Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Col. Hon.G.F. (Will'sden, E.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
steel, Major Samuel Strang


Ellis, R. G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H.


Elveden, Viscount
Maclntyre, Ian
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sueter, Rear Admiral Murray Fraser


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Falls, Sir Charles F.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Templeton, W. P.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Flelden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier General E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Fleming, D. P.
Malone, Major P. B.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Fraser,Captain lai
Margesson, Capt. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, Rt. Hon. E.(York, W. R., Ripon)


Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston on Hull)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Warner, Brigadier General W. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Warrender, Sir Victor
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Wlndsor Clive, Lieut. Colonel George
Worthington Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wragg, Herbert


Watts, Dr. T.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wells, S. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Wheler, Major Granville C. H.
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


White, Lieut. Colonel G. Dalrymple
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfieldl
Smillie, Robert


Batey, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Taylor, R. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Sir Robort John (Anglesey)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Crawfurd H. E.
Lunn, William
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Vlant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duckworth, John
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, John H.(Accrington)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Murnln, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
Naylor, T. E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Forrest, W.
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Wignall, James


Graham, D. M. (Lanark,Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Pethick Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenall, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H.(Lianelly)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grigg, Lieut. Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton le Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Windsor, Walter


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson,W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hardie, George D.
Rose, Frank H.


Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.


Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.

EXCISE DUTIES ON PATENT MEDICINES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Sir JOHN SIMON: It is usual, either in Committee or on Report, that there should be some short explanation as to what the duties that are being imposed are. There has been, as far as I remember, no explanation at all in Committee
on this Resolution, and I think it would he reasonable to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he would, in two or three sentences, state what are the duties that the House is now, with much solemnity, deciding to impose.

Mr. GUINNESS: This is a very old duty, which was doubled by the Finance Act, 1915. It is based on varying scales, according to selling price, the original scales being permanent. When the duties were doubled, they had the unexpected and satisfactory result of more than
doubling the revenue, which, for the nine years since the doubling of the duty averaged £1,089,000, and before they were doubled, £334,000. We find that these increased duties have not affected the sale of patent medicines, and they do not impede the work of the panel doctors. Less than 1 per cent. of their prescriptions are estimated to fall under the operation of these duties, and we believe they are valuable revenue duties which impose no hardship on any class of the community.

NEW IMPORT DUTIES.

Captain BENN: I beg to move,
 That the Resolution be recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means.
I wish it had been in order to move to recommit this Resolution in a reasoned Motion, because that would have set out in the Journal of the House the precise grounds on which I make this Motion, but, as that is impossible, I make the plain Motion to recommit. This is an unconstitutional proceeding, and perhaps hon. Members will wish me to put the point which I addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, yesterday. It is a very ancient rule of this House that more than one subject may not be united in one question. For instance, when the Ballot for Notices of Motion is taken, an hon. Member is not entitled to get up and say: "I propose to call attention to the fishing industry, to the mining industry and to widows' pensions," but he has to specify the subject on which he is asking the House to decide, and that ancient and well established practice of the House, which is set out quite clearly in "Parliamentary Practice," by Erskine May, is founded upon the commonsense ground that you can only consider one thing at a time. You cannot be expected to decide two questions of a different nature in one vote. If that be important as a rule of procedure in reference to an ordinary topic, how much more important it is when we are going through the solemn procedure which we do in Committee of Ways and Means and on Report for the imposition of taxation upon the people whom we represent in this House. It is of much greater necessity that the rules of propriety should be observed with the strictest precision on such an occasion than it is in ordinary Debates.
There has been a little latitude allowed in reference to what I should prefer to call the "New Churchill Duties." They were imposed during the War, and made annual taxes, and were continued year by year by a continuing Resolution. Some financial purists, such as Mr. Lough, who was a great expert in the practice of this House, raised the matter and called the attention of the Chair to the fact that four duties were being continued in one Resolution, and the view taken by the Chair—it was during the War, when the main thing was to get business quickly dispatched—was that there was nothing improper in continuing duties by one Resolution, even if the one Resolution covered a diverse collection of duties. But, Sir, your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker Lowther, made it perfectly clear that, whereas one omnibus Resolution covering four diverse taxes for continuance might be granted, did the same Resolution propose four new taxes, the matter would certainly not be allowed. He said:  I quite agree, speaking on the general subject, that it would be extremely undesirable to put into a Resolution a combined number of new duties, but I would point out that this does not contain any new duties. He repeated the ruling shortly after, when he said:
 I quite agree that it would be extremely undesirable to introduce a Resolution into Committee which combined a number of new duties." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1916; col. 561, Vol. 83.]
It may be said that the watchfulness of hon. Members was at fault in not challenging this in Committee of Ways and Means. I admit that it was a lack of watchfulness on the part of Members of this House, but I would plead in extenuation that Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means are very peculiar in character. Whereas other Government Resolutions are put on the Order Paper, so that we may examine them and see whether they conform to Parliamentary practice, these Resolutions are secret, and nobody knows what they will be until the Chancellor of the Exchequer opens his Budget. Nobody has any authoritative information as to what he is going to propose, and, therefore, the only opportunity we had, if we had not been lacking in watchfulness, was, when we got the Resolutions read out from the Table,
there and then to detect that there was a breach of practice, and to protest, and there is no doubt that had we done so the Chair would have ruled that the Resolution was out of order, and the Chancellor would have been compelled—there is no doubt about it—to withdraw it and introduce a new Resolution in Committee. But there was a further safeguard, and I hope I shall not be guilty of any impropriety in referring to it. On that same occasion, in June, 1916, you, Sir, made use of some words for which, I venture to think, every Member of the House who is determined to defend its privileges and rights should be very grateful. You said, being then Chairman of Ways and Means:
 If it had been proposed in the originating Resolution in the Committee of Ways and Means to bring in new taxes of widely different character in a single Resolution, I should have deemed it my duty to refuse." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1916; col. 771, Vol. 83.]
Therefore, if we had been guilty of a lack of watchfulness, there was the double safeguard in the Chairman of Ways and Means. This is not a small point. It is true we are opposing the Budget by every legitimate Parliamentary means, but this is not a point that is concerned with this Budget or with its merits. It is not a pasty point. It has nothing to do as between ourselves and hon. Members of the Conservative party or of the Labour party. It is a Parliamentary point. If we looked at it purely from the party point of view, I do not know about the party to which I belong, but certainly hon. Members of the Labour party might find it to their advantage to see this new power in the hands of the Executive. How easy it would be, when they come into office in the years to come, to combine a new Super-tax, new Death Duties, and a Capital Levy all in one Resolution, and put it to the House, founding themselves on the precedent established, or attempted to be established, to-day. It is a much bigger thing than a party point. It is a House of Commons point and a people's point.
Far above the advantage of any party is the right and privilege of this House, because it is not the privilege of a class but the privilege of the people. This House, through its Members, for five centuries has fought the power of taxation from above without its assent. From
the 15th century onwards it has fought for the power over money against the Crown, and later on it fought for the control of finance against the other place. I do not see why this House should have won battles against the Crown and against the other place merely in order to cede the power to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He appears to me to have, if I may say so, a contempt for the House of Commons. He is like a true prototype of his. He wants everything in one Resolution; he would like the people to have one neck, so that the whole job could be done its one blow. He has not only embodied all the Resolutions in one, but he is snaking the taxes perennial instead of annual, and he announced to-day that he was proposing, if necessary, to take power to make retrospective taxation. I do not say this to make any party appeal, because I hope this Motion will be supported by Members in all parts of the House—true Parliamentary men. I say that it is time that the House of Commons reasserted its control over the trust that has been given to it solemnly by those who send the Members here.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has moved the Motion, I think everybody will agree, at once so succinctly and so admirably that only a very few words from me will be required. But I do ask leave to add a word or two, among other things, because I was associated with my hon. and gallant Friend in putting down, no doubt in a less correct form, the proposition to which we were anxious to draw the attention of the House of Commons. Hon. Members will see that on the Order Paper appears a Motion in this form:
 That this House declines to consider a composite Resolution which is a breach of established constitutional and Parliamentary usage, and groups together under a single head disconnected proposals for the imposition of a series of duties from which the country is at present exempt.
I quite appreciate the ruling that that is not the proper form in which to raise the question, but I submit that the proposition contained in that Resolution is an absolutely well-founded proposition. Let me point out in a few sentences to the
House of Commons the application of it here. It was in 1915 that the duties with which we are here concerned first came to be imposed. How were they imposed? They were imposed by carrying through Committee of Ways and Means, on the proposition of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, a series of quite separate Resolutions. There was one Resolution about motor cars. There was a second, and quite separate Resolution, about cinematograph films. There was a Resolution about musical instruments, and another Resolution about clocks and watches. Indeed, there were two more carried in Committee of that day, one which the right hon. Gentleman has not thought a proper subject for revival—namely, a Resolution for a tax upon hats, and he has gone to the other end of the human frame to find a new duty. There was also a sixth, which did not, in the end, develop into an actual Duty, to tax plate glass.
Therefore, as these things first emerged in 1915, they emerged, as they ought in Committee of Ways and Means, quite separately, by six separate propositions, each of them duly Reported to the House, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, that is not only technically right, but it is right as a matter of good sense, because it is most important that when the Government of the day are proposing to impose upon the people of this country burdens which they are not bearing at the present moment, they should propose those burdens in Committee of Ways and Means one at a time. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, really, is to come to the Committee of Ways and Means and say, "I have got a lot of duties in this bag, and now I propose to pass a Resolution under which we impose the duties in this bag." I submit that that is totally contrary to constitutional practice. It is a wholly different thing if the people of this country at the moment are paying certain duties, and the proposal is to continue them for a further period. Then, I am aware, that by the practice of this House, it has been thought permissible to have a single Resolution in Committee which continues existing duties. But here we are dealing with new duties. They are none the less new because they were imposed once before in the history of Parliament They are called by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Resolution, new duties. Indeed, I think, in answer to a private notice question to-day, he himself again described them as new duties, and quite accurately so. My right hon. Friend, I think, will, on reflection, be disposed to agree that they must be regarded here as new duties, and, therefore, ought to be proposed separately.
There is only one other feature which makes the present case most remarkable. Not only does the Chancellor of the Exchequer see fit to throw these four perfectly separate duties into one Resolution—because there is no more connection between taxing motor-cars and taxing cinema films than there is between taxing films and taxing hops—but, in considering the Cinema Film Duty, what he wants to do is not to reimpose the duty as it used to be, but to alter it, and, in addition to having a single Resolution for these four perfectly disconnected and separate imposts, he, in the same Resolution, proceeds to announce his desire to amend one of them. We are all of us concerned to see that the established usage of the House of Commons is preserved, and I have not the slightest doubt the right hon. Gentleman is as much concerned as anyone. I invite him, therefore, on reflection to tell the House whether lie does not take the view that there was, in fact, a departure, and, I think, serious departure, from established practice, and to say how he would suggest that we should put ourselves right.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I myself am, to a certain extent, in sympathy with some of the arguments which have been used by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, and I am also in sympathy with the position in which they find themselves in regard to it. My attention was not drawn, at the time of the Budget Resolutions were being framed, to the rulings which Mr. Speaker Lowther gave in 1916. Certainly I think those rulings are all of very direct relevance to the present position, but, however that may be, the hon. and gallant Member and the right hon. and learned Member have missed their opportunity. Their opportunity for protesting against any procedure of which they disapprove was when the
Resolutions were first presented to the Committee. A similar case has occurred, and if the hon. and gallant Member had read further, or quoted further from the Debates of 1916, to which he referred, he would have seen that Mr. Speaker Lowther made the following further observations in exactly similar circumstances. He pointed out the precedents, and said:
 I cannot now intervene. Both the right hon. Gentlemen should have intervened when the Motion was first put from the Chair in Committee if they wished to raise the point. The House has received the Resolution as agreed to in Committee, and it is impossible for me to divide the Report which the House has made. The House has ordered the Resolution to be reported."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1916; col. 501, Vol. 83.]
And so, although I readily admit that there may be some question as to the original procedure, there is no doubt the House has regularised that procedure, and the Resolution is now a good Resolution.

Captain BENN: Is this not an invasion of the prerogatives of the Chair? You yourself, Mr. Speaker, put from the Chair "That the Resolution be recommitted." The House may consider that on its merits, but I submit that the right hon. Gentleman has no right whatever to tell us that it is out of order to discuss a Motion to recommit the Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not understand that at all from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. SNOWDEN: In the event of the Motion to recommit being carried, would it not then be within the right of the Committee to amend the original Ways and Means Resolution?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, of course; the House would then be in Committee again.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I really cannot see in what way I have transgressed, in merely reading a quotation from the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lowther, following directly after the two rulings which the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Benn) himself read. It does seem to be not an exaggerated request for a Minister to put forward, that he should be permitted to read what is an essential part of the ruling of a Speaker that has already been quoted. I was proceeding to say, when the hon. and gallant Member leapt, I will
not say into the air, but to his feet with such agility, that I think his opportunity, unless he can persuade the House to reverse its decision, has gone, and that the Resolution is a good one. It has been endorsed by the House, and no objection taken. So that, unless he can reverse the decision, his opportunity has gone. Nevertheless, I think there is sufficient justice and substance in the argument which he has unfolded to make it necessary for the Government to reconsider their procedure in the later stages of this long discussion on which we are now embarking. After all, these Resolutions are only the preliminary skirmish in the long campaign of the Budget. They are only the permission given for us to introduce the Finance Bill of the year, and after the Finance Bill has been introduced, the whole of this procedure, Clause by Clause—every proposal, every duty—is gone over, fought out to the utmost detail and the utmost length, both in Committee and on the Report of the Bill.
This particular stage in which we are now is only a preliminary skirmish that, the House, in its great and justifiable care for financial procedure, has introduced in regard to Money Bills, and particularly in the Finance Bill of the year. Therefore, while I should certainly resist any attempt to go back at this stage on the decision of the House taken in Committee of Ways and Means, to the effect that these are good Resolutions—and I should resist it by going to a Division if a Division were called—I will take steps to divide these duties into their proper component parts in the drafting of the Finance Bill, so that every one can be debated and divided upon in detail separately, without being mixed up in any way with the others. And, generally speaking, I should like to say at the outset of these long discussions which are promised to be so very fierce and controversial, that the whole policy of the Government, and of the Minister in charge of the Bill, and the only wish I have is, that the controversial issues of the Budget shall be brought to the clearest point of collision, fought out in the best circumstances, so that not only will Parliament. be able to thrash out all these matters, but the country, which follows our discussions, will be able to form its own judgment on the issues on one side or the other.
That is the spirit in which we shall embark upon these proceedings, and it is as an example of that, that I undertake to present the Finance Bill in the form which the hon. and gallant Member and the right hon. and learned Member (Sir J. Simon) have both considered to be desirable. I think it would be a great pity if we wasted the full opportunities of Parliamentary discussion which are open; for instance, we want to have the crucial questions debated in such a way and at such times as the debates are reported, so that the country can follow the discussions. That is our only wish, and it is the only wish of those who want the House of Commons to discharge its functions in finance with reality and efficiency. If, for instance, we were able to come to a decision on what are called the McKenna Duties this evening, we should then be able to take the Silk Duties discussion tomorrow in the full light of day. The whole afternoon could be given to that, and there would still be time before we got to the late hours to deal with other matters at a time when they would be reported. I only throw that out, because it makes no real difference to the Government. We shall have to press on with the discussion, and, of course, we shall have to sit very late tomorrow night, if necessary. But it is worth considering whether more will not be gained by the opponents of the Budget, if they have confidence in their case, in bringing the crucial matters to the test in the best circumstances, and not concentrating attention on the other matters. Under these circumstances, I am quite ready to undertake in this Finance Bill that these duties—the so-called McKenna Duties—shall be divided up as has been suggested and wished. If that he satisfactory to hon. Members opposite, we might perhaps bring this particular phase of our discussion, which deals with procedure, to a close, and get on to other more important matters.

Mr. SNOWDEN: There has been a great deal in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which has served no other purpose than of confusing the real issue. The right hon. Gentleman protested more than once in the course of his observations that it was desirable that the issues
should be presented to the House of Commons in a way in which they could be properly debated. I take it that the root of the objection which has been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) is as to the form in which the Resolution was placed on the Paper. I think the point put forward is most important, because I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) that there is a great controversial issue here to be decided, and it should be placed upon record that the House of Commons recognises that, so that it can be referred to in future if similar circumstances arise. I do not know whether my hon. Friends are prepared to go to a Division or not. I do not know what may be the effect of the present discussion. It is a matter difficult to decide upon the spur of the moment. However, if we may assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has apologised —[HON. MEMBERS: "What for? "] For the unconstitutional methods that ha has adopted. It is one of the gravest things that could be done. However, I would simply say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an abject and humble apology to the House for the form in which this Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means has been put forward, and that he is prepared to make all the amendment within his power to see that the mistake is rectified in the Finance Bill. It seems to me that under those circumstances, perhaps, it may not be necessary to go to a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I would reply to those cheers by saying that we are not on this side of the House here to oblige hon. Members on the other side in regard to matters of this sort.
I have another objection to the form in which this Resolution appears, which has not been touched upon. We heard a great deal in days gone by about legislation by reference. Who, reading this Resolution as it appears on the Paper, would know what we propose to do? Who would know that it is proposed to put duties on motor-cars, films, and a number of other things? It has no meaning at all in this respect. Reference has been made to a certain section, eight I think, of the Finance Act of 1924. The only explanation that I can
offer for the form in which this Resolution appears is that it is a piece of vindictiveness on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in re-imposing duties which had been repealed by us. However, in view of the humble apology that he has made for the terms of this Motion, I think, perhaps, we might proceed to other business.

Mr. HARNEY: I am afraid I cannot accept the attitude taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a sufficient apology. I regard his answer as coming to this: He says, I admit I was quite wrong in lumping these four Resolutions together: had I know more I would have treated them separately." He says further that these Resolutions are a preliminary canter to the Bill, and that this practice has been adopted because the security of the money resolutions is so unquestioned in the House of Commons, and such caution is provided, that we have a double-barrelled means of debating each of them—first as Resolutions, and afterwards on Report. If that be the constitutional way in which the right hon. Gentleman admits that he was wrong, it is no answer to say: "I will right matters by giving you one Debate instead of two Debates to which constitutionally you are entitled." I would submit, therefore, that, having regard to his admission, the only proper thing to do is to accept the Motion, have the Resolution recommitted, and put right when it comes up again in Committee of Ways and Means. It certainly is an important thing to note the position taken up now by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it is a declaration that the old established practice of debating these matters, first in the form of Resolutions, and, secondly, in the form of a Bill, are wholly unnecessary, and that in future, therefore, we may regard a Debate upon the Resolutions as a matter of just adherence to precedent, and that the real point is the Bill. I think we ought to insist upon the sacredness of the old practice and the double form of Debate. I cannot, for my part, reconcile the admission that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his refusal to give us that full constitutional right to which, I submit, we are entitled.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stick to
his guns. Might I point out to the House, and to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—and especially to the last speaker, and to the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the time has gone by for this House to talk about great constitutional principles being observed! The present Government, the last Government and the penultimate Government, all supported a Bill which violated the rights and the traditions which have just been spoken of with such affection on the other side. The War Charges Validity Bill went to the bottom of the whole of it, and a more reactionary Measure was never presented, because this House had never discussed the matter at all. We have had to limit discussion on this question: therefore, it, is all moonshine that is talked about the constitution, and such discussion had better be left to one side. It is not creditable to the intelligence of the average Member of this House. The sooner we drop it and get to business the better.

Sir J. SIMON: By leave of the House, may I just address one question to you, Mr. Speaker? What between the suggestions of moonshine on the one hand, and the talk about abject apology on the other side, there may not be put on record what is the impartial view of the, Chair on this matter. Speaking for myself—and, I think, for my hon. Friends—we should not desire to go to a Division merely for the sake of keeping up a controversy. when really the important thing is to get on the records of Parliament what is the true constitutional rule in this matter. If I might, I would ask you whether you would clearly state to the House what is the rule, so that it may be recorded impartially as to what is the correct procedure in Committee of Ways and Means?

Mr. SPEAKER: I entirely adhere to the ruling given by my predecessor in 1916. I think that the proposal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will safeguard the position in future, taken with the discussion which has just concluded. As far as I am concerned, I certainly shall be satisfied that the decision of my predecessor should become recognised as a matter of the practice of the House.

Captain BENN: May I put this question? Does your ruling amount to this: that a mistake has been made, and that
amends possibly are being made, and that the rule is as laid down by Mr. Speaker Lowther, namely, that one tax must have one Resolution originating in Committee of Ways and Means?

Mr. SPEAKER: It was that ruling of my predecessor to which I referred. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman desire to press his Motion?

Captain BENN: In the circumstances, I do not desire to press it, and ask leave to withdraw.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in line 1, after the word "duties," to insert the words
other than the duty on motor cars, including motor bicycles and motor tricycles.
In accordance with your instruction, Sir, I understand it is relevant to the discussion at the moment to range over all the Amendments standing in my name. During the War many people sought to change their surname in order to disguise their identity. The abuse of that practice was prevented in a way that we know of, but no law has been made to prevent politicians from changing the names of some of the commonly understood items of political discussion. Before the War, when a duty was imposed by the Customs and a corresponding duty was not imposed on home manufactures by Excise, that operation of imposing that protective tariff was described as Protection. To-day we are told that that is not true. We are told that there can be other cases in which there is this differentiation between the Custom Duty and the Excise Duty, but that it does not amount to a protective duty, or to Protection. We are told that this differentiation may be made under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. We are told that it can be introduced because the articles with which it is concerned may be described as luxuries. We are told also that reimposition to-day of certain specific duties, which were imposed at the instigation of Mr. McKenna—just because they are imposed at this time and in this way—do not amount to Protection or to a protective tariff. It may be asked why I trouble merely about names, and what does it matter by what name the operation is
called? The name does matter, because the word "Protection" has a history, in many different ways. In the first place, there is the historic utterance of Lord Beaconsfield, that Protection was "not only dead but damned.".
Coming to more modern times, we have had certain statements made with regard to Protection when using that specific word, and which are, therefore, vital to the consideration of this question to-day. At the time of the Election the Prime Minister bound himself by a self-denying ordinance with regard to this matter, and as recently as December last, in this House of Commons, he declared there would not be an avenue open to Protection except through the method of the safeguarding of industries. In this House all of us, not only Members on that side, but here on this side above the Gangway, and I am quite sure I can say the same of hon. Members who sit below the Gangway, have a very high respect for the Prime Minister, and we are anxious to know how he reconciles this very specific statement with the introduction of these duties, which were originally brought forward by Mr. McKenna. One possible explanation has occurred to me, and it is this. It may conceivably be said that during the Debate last year something was said from the Conservative benches to the effect that if the Conservatives came into power they would reimpose these duties. I cannot remember whether or not anything specific was said along those lines, but it may be that some such indication was given. If that be indeed the excuse to be offered to-day, I can only say to those who have reminded us that we are becoming accustomed in this House to "legislation by reference" that this would be "pledges by reference," and if there be anything worse than legislation by reference surely it would be pledges by reference. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister, whose honour we all hold so high, would be guilty of a sophistry of that kind.
When we come to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the case is somewhat different. It is putting it mildly to say that he has never been, up to recently at any rate, an enthusiastic supporter of Protection. In days gone by he has not viewed it in a very kindly light! On the contrary, he has always regarded it as a very dark and dangerous experiment. I cannot
help thinking that when he contemplates the new object of his worship, and the star to which he pins his faith, he must sometimes be tempted to murmur the words of the hymn:—
I was not ever thus; nor prayed that Thou,
Shouldst lead me on.
I loved to choose and see my path, but now,
Remember not past years.

HON. MEMBERS: Lead thou me on.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Because of these three things, the historic utterance of Lord Beaconsfield, the pledge of the Prime Minister, and the past attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Protection, we are being told to-day, it seems to me, that these duties are not protective tariffs and do not amount to Protection. In this way it was possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while holding open the front door of the financial system of this country, holding it open, not with modesty, but proudly, and even defiantly, in order to allow the entrance of one little duty definitely named by him as Protection, that is the duty on hops, at the same time quite frankly to open the back door, three back doors in fact, to allow duties of a really protective character to come in. I refer, first, to what is done under the safeguarding of industries; secondly, to his statement about luxuries; and thirdly, to these proposals which we have come to know by the name of the McKenna Duties.
I have no intention of going in any great detail into the particulars of these duties. The statement made by Mr. Bonar Law about them was repeated in a very clear and lucid speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Runciman) on 30th April, when he gave particulars of these duties to Members of the House of Commons who are not acquainted with them as fully as some of us who have been in earlier Parliaments I would recount briefly some of the main facts. These duties were introduced originally, during the War, by Mr. McKenna. They were introduced for this specific reason, that it was desired to prevent cargo space in ships being taken up by articles for private and what was then, to some extent, luxurious consumption, when that space was desired by the Government for purposes connected with the
War. Definite pledges, definite and precise pledges, were given at that time, not only by the Liberal party but by the other members of the Coalition, that these duties were not to be regarded as protective duties, and that they would not be retained after the war; and in fact, it was said it was almost inconceivable that anyone should retain them after the War as part of the fiscal system of the country. When the War came to an end it was arranged that these duties should be continued for the space of three years only. When, however, the three years came to an end, successive Chancellors found themselves pushed to retain these duties year by year, until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), having more courage, perhaps, than the Chancellors who had preceded him, decided not to reimpose them, and they accordingly dropped.
Members of the House who were present last year will remember that not only were serious prophecies of disaster made, but that there were fantastic prophecies about millions of men who might be thrown out of work by the withdrawal of these duties. We were told that everyone of these industries would be ruined, and that in the motor industry, in particular, we were bringing about a cessation of the great prosperity it was enjoying. We were told almost at one and the same time that the industry was in a state of great prosperity, and that we would bring that prosperity to an end, and that the motor industry was in such a bad condition that any further blow would fell it to the ground. Those fantastic prophecies have not been justified to the smallest extent.
I will give the House a few figures relating to the motor industry, which is, after all, the principal one of them. In 1922 the number of motor cars made in this country was in the neighbour hood of 40,000, worth £20,000,000. In 1923 the 40,000 had grown to 67,000, and the value was £24,000,000, an increase but not a very large increase. In the year 1924, the year in which the duties were removed. the 67,000 had grown to 107,000, and the £24,000,000 had grown to £36,000,000. It may be thought that this was solely due to the export trade, and that we in this country suffered by
the remission of the protective tariffs that we should naturally have a very much smaller proportion of the home trade. As a matter of fact, that was not the case. Whereas in 1923 only 62 per cent. of the home consumption was supplied by home manufacture, in 1924 as high a proportion as 70 per cent. of the total home consumption was supplied by home manufacture. Finally, and this is the last figure I propose to inflict on the House, in the first quarter of this year the motor industry as a whole made 41 per cent. greater profits than was made in the first quarter of last year.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Were the profits made in that quarter?

Mr. PETHICKLAWRENCE: Reported in the first quarter of this year—the year in which ruin was predicted, and the direst consequences were prophesied.

Brigadier General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the duties were taken off?

Mr PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 1st July, half-way through the year. [HON. MEMBERS: "August! "] Well, 1st August—broadly speaking, the middle of the calendar year 1924; the duties were taken off a little bit after the middle of the year. The profits shown in the first quarter of this year, having been made during the year 1924, were not reduced, as would obviously be the natural consequence if the prophesies of disaster had been fulfilled, but were increased by 41 per cent. That is complete proof that the anticipations of those who held that this course was going to be injurious were entirely unfulfilled. Speaking for myself, I do not think it was desirable even in war time to impose what were, even then, duties of the character of protective duties, and I think some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway must rather regret the essays in Protection. to which their party committed themselves during the War.

Captain BENN: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to interrupt him? Will he distinguish between the party and some members of our party?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do distinguish, most certainly. What I say is that some Members sitting below the
Gangway must regret the policy which some of their leaders did carry through.

Major HORE-BELISHA: And some of yours.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Well, I will not press that point. But I will say that during the War there was certainly a case to be made out for 7.0 P.M. some form of exclusion, whether it should take that form or not, during the peculiar circumstances of the War. But that argument certainly does not apply to-day. What excuse can there be to-day for putting these duties, and, further still, for calling them anything else but what they are, namely, Protection? It may be said that they are duties upon luxuries. I do not think that it would make any difference if they were, but to what extent is that true? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) pointed out that the main burden of this duty fell on the cheaper car. His statement was questioned by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and it is usual on these occasions for the representative of the Treasury to be present.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the representatives of the Treasury are absent for only a few moments.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I was pointing out that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley suggested, and, I think, with the greatest truth with regard to this motor taxation, that the motors to which the differential duty applied were mostly cheaper cars. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury with considerable ability mentioned the Spanish names of two cars, of which not one in ten, and I doubt whether one in fifty Members had ever heard before, to suggest that these duties applied to the more expensive cars. I think there is no doubt that, as a matter of fact, it does apply mainly to the cheaper car, and that farmers using cars for their business are those particularly concerned by this duty. But it does not apply only to motor cars, but also to motor cycles. They are not luxuries. They are produced partly for business. Then there is the question of clocks and watches. No one can say that they are articles of luxury, though many of them come from foreign countries. As a matter of fact, it is not possible to argue that this duty solely affects items of luxury.
Is it further suggested that these duties are of the nature of the safeguarding of industries, and could be introduced through the safeguarding of industries procedure? I think it must be perfectly clear that, not only have they not been brought through that machinery, but they could not have successfully navigated the waters of that channel. They would have been caught in the meshes of the net which that procedure has to stop those which are not suitable to be dealt with in that way. The defence which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself put forward was somewhat jejune. He said that the object of this duty was for the purpose of revenue. There is a very simple answer to that. If these duties are simply for the purpose of revenue, why do not they put on a corresponding excise? If these duties are not Protection, what in heaven's name are they, and what justification is there for them?
Now I have come to the end, except for one question that I put to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has told us that he has no intention of allowing a general tariff to come into operation in this country as the result of the safeguarding of industries. Does he not realise that a general tariff is ultimately made up of the aggregation of small tariffs, and, while it is perfectly true that one swallow does not make a summer, and while it is perfectly true that one drop of water does not make a flood, nevertheless it is also true that the little springs, when united together, form a great river. It is well known that tariffs always begin in a small way; but they gather force as they go on until at last the little tariffs swell themselves until they become a great Protective system. I want to know at what point will the Prime Minister consider it necessary to put a stop, at what point will he take the steps which will be required to stem the rising tide of Protection, of which we see the beginnings coming from every side.

Mr. MORRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is one fact to be remembered. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very anxious, nay, he welcomed a fight. He was eager for it, eager for the subject to be taken up. Immediately the first Resolution came forward search had to be made for the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, because he was not in his place on the Treasury Bench. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been a great champion of Free Trade policy, he appears in his Budget speech as the first Protectionist Chancellor this country has seen for the last hundred years. This is the first Protectionist Budget that has been introduced for the last 100 years. It will be interesting to recall what the Chancellor has thought about these Resolutions. I am not going into the history of these particular Resolutions. That history is well known. The arguments for and against these tariffs is perfectly well known, but I should like to quote to the House the opinions entertained, at any rate at one time, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the members of the party of which he is now such a distinguished ornament, and of such Resolutions as have now been put forward. He said, describing both the Tory party and the tariff policy:
 It is a party of vested interest, corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad, trickery by tariff jugglery."—
and he is now taking part in that jugglery himself, and, if I may say so, he is a very accomplished juggler—
 the tyranny of the party machine sentiment by the bucketful, patriotism by the imperial pint, an open hand in the public Exchequer and the open door to the public-house, dear food for the million and cheap labour for the millionaire.
Well, the Chancellor has had a splendid opportunity, not of condemning the Tory party for taking up that stand, but of giving that party a very distinguished lead in bringing "dear food for the million," because all these duties he is proposing are going to make the lot of the workmen of this country a good deal harder.
Sometime at the beginning of this year, at the beginning of this Parliament, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wood) was looking round for a policy to support the cause of agriculture in this country. He proposed setting up a Conference. That Conference did not come about. He has not yet found a policy to suit agriculture. But these duties which the Chancellor proposes, instead of doing something to assist agriculturists, are going to be a handicap to them. A farmer will have to pay more for his machinery because of these duties and for the motor car he will buy, for the
farmer, let me say, is a very large user of motor cars. I represent a Division where districts are from seven to 10 miles from the nearest railway station, and the farmers are only able to take their goods there by the use of a motor car. But I am not very much concerned to-night with that position. I am concerned with what is a very much more serious position, and that is the pledge given by the Government, and given by Government supporters. These duties, frankly, are Protective duties. It is not denied. A pledge was given by the Prime Minister in this House on the 17th December last, when he said: "We have no mandate for Protection." That was clearly true. There was no mandate for Protection at the last election. The number of votes cast for the party above the Gangway and for the party of which I have the honour to be a member was larger than the votes that were cast for the party opposite. There was no mandate for protective duties. The Prime Minister clearly recognised that fact, for he said:
 As far as the Protection of any industry goes in this Parliament, the only avenue open to us is the avenue opened through the new Safeguarding of Industries Act.
These protective duties are being introduced quite independently of that Act. Is that how pledges, given by the Prime Minister in this House, are going to be honoured by his Chancellor of the Exchequer, or is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to say he did not know that pledge was given by the Prime Minister? When the head of the Government gives a pledge, not only in this House but through this House to the country, that he is not going to impose any new protective duties except through the Safeguarding of Industries Act, how is it we find that three months after the Chancellor of the Exchequer introducing those duties under another heading? The whole position is misleading, and is practically a fraud upon the electorate from the point of view of the responsibility of public life. A pledge given by a responsible Minister in a public position should be honoured, and the country is entitled to be told that that pledge is going to be observed.

Mr. KIDD: The hon. Member who introduced this Amendment and the hon. Member who seconded it seemed to be
under the impression that the decision of the Chancellor to re-impose the McKenna Duties is contradictory of this general attitude adopted by him in the Free Trade and Protection controversy. I think they fail to distinguish between protection given to an established industry and a security which is legitimately given in order to stimulate a new industry more than likely to be of scientific origin, and therefore affording employment of an improved character. We have an example of affording security to stimulate new industry in the law of patents. There it is recognised that patents not only increase employment, but also tend to improve its quality. That is the national interest in giving security to a patent, namely, to stimulate invention which adds to employment—the security is not merely to reward the inventor. Take the case of motor-cars. I heard in the earlier stages of this discussion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) make great play of the fact that there had been no diminution of employment in the motor-car trade after the duties were taken off. May I submit this argument. It is common ground that the motor industry was in a very depressed condition before the McKenna Duties were imposed. It is also common ground that after the imposition of those duties the motor industry received a stimulus the direct effect of which was to give increased employment. When those duties were taken off by the Labour Government what is the explanation for the apparent non-diminution of employment. It is simply that the momentum given by the security afforded by the imposition of the McKenna Duties had not exhausted itself. Anyone associated with industry will fully appreciate the fairness of that proposition. With regard to the reimposition of these duties, I think there are Members sitting on the Labour benches who would like to see in this country more and more security of this kind given in order to stimulate new industries of improved character. I am aware that members of the Labour party take the deepest interest in education. In raising the general standard of education surely I am right in saying that it should follow as a corollary that we should seek to improve, not only the quantity, but also the quality of employment. We want
to see employment of a better quality in order that it may more and more satisfy the mind which comes with better education We can do something towards this end by giving such security as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seeks to give. Many of us are quite stubborn in our opposition to Protection, but we recognise the distinction between security which brings new trade and trade of a better quality and Protection which may more tend to encourage idleness than stimulate enterprise. It is thus we regard the Chancellor's action at this time and we hope the experiment may be repeated in other directions.

Sir H. CROFT: The Mover of this Amendment, like the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) seemed to take grave offence at the reimposition of the McKenna Duties which, they contend, is in some way a violation of the pledge of the Conservative party given at the last election. I submit that in regard to every one of the Members of the party to which I belong on every single platform at the last election we condemned the abandonment of the McKenna Duties, and I do not suppose that there is a single one of us who did not put in the forefront of his programme a determination to see that those duties were reimposed. I would also ask hon. Members opposite to recollect the actual occasion when the final decision was arrived at to get rid of those duties, because quite apart from the fiscal controversy, the whole tone of every speech delivered by the Members of the Conservative party was that on the first possible occasion we should reintroduce those duties if returned to power.
The hon. Member for Cardigan quoted a very eloquent speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which almost made me regret that he could not find words equally poetic and effective with which to attack my party, but the fact remains that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unlike some others who supported these fiscal proposals during the War, has not found it consistent with his duty to abandon the workers of this country, and he is raising such revenue as he can by this duty under the policy which has been laid down. Has it been forgotten that the Paris resolution with which Mr. McKenna was largely associated as well as the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) laid down that it was not only to cover the period of the War but for a world-wide settlement after the War.
Another reason given was that we should do everything in our power to help the exchange because it was realised that our imports were very largely exceeding our exports, and they have continued to do so. Is it reasonable now to maintain our exchange in that state? At the present time we see announced in the newspapers that very large numbers of foreign articles such as motor-cars and musical instruments are being poured into this country in order to get in before the duties are imposed, and can anyone who realises what our fellow-countrymen are now suffering through unemployment be so soaked in pedantry as not to be aware that everyone of those articles which are now being imported into this country in such large quantities would give additional employment to the people of this country if the McKenna Duties had been in force. One hon. Member asserted that the profits in the motor industry had gone up 40 per cent. I am aware that that industry has enjoyed five or six years of settled trade under the McKenna. Duties and in spite of the injury done by the abolition of those duties, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to destroy the splendid effect which those duties had had on the motor industry during the past five or six years.

Mr.PETHICK LAWRENCE: You prophesied that they would have a disastrous effect.

Sir H. CROFT: I say that every additional car which comes into this country as a result of the policy adopted by the abolition of the McKenna Duties means the deprivation of work which would otherwise be given to the workers in this country. When the hon. Member for Cardigan gets up and says that he represents a Liberal constituency in which cheap motor-cars are necessary for the farmers, I entirely agree with him, but I would like to point out to him that the price of motor-cars continued to come down in this country under the McKenna Duties. The hon. Member is anxious that the farmers should be supplied with Ford cars, but why should not those cars be manufac-
tured at Manchester or Dagenham in this country? In spite of this question being referred to as a large protective measure, speaking as one who really believes in Protection, I say that this policy, if it is Protection, is only a niggling thing. I do not thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for it, except that it is an indication of the right direction.
If the policy of the McKenna Duties had been extended to all manufactured imports coming into this country, my opinion is that you would have had factories springing up all over this country, and you would have had an immediate and substantial decrease in the number of unemployed, which would have done much to relieve this appalling unemployment problem which we see in our midst. I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a small thing, which is not a new thing, because the re-imposition of these duties has been carried out by successive Governments, and I would like to point out that even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley had not unanimity in his own party when he decided to dispense with those duties. The Socialist Government was driven to take that action owing to the fact that they depended upon the votes of Liberals below the Gangway. Now that that unholy alliance has once and for all been finished, I think we shall find that there will be far more support for these duties, and more hon. Members will come to hold the view that we are not now so much concerned with Protection or Free Trade, but we are all animated with a desire to provide more employment for the people of this country.

Major CRAWFURD: It is a matter of keen regret to me and to my Friends that the hon. Baronet who has just resumed his seat did not detain the House a little longer, because I think that the longer he went on the more admirable would the object-lesson have been which he was giving to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the more clearly would that right hon. Gentleman have realised the kind of company that he is now keeping. I do not propose to go in any detail into the arguments of the hon. Baronet, but only to mention two. In the first place, when he talks, as he did towards the conclusion of his remarks, about the
importations into this country which are depriving men of work, may I put to him once again the very elementary question which I put to members of his party some weeks ago on another occasion—How does he think that those things are being paid for? If he really believes that motor-cars or any other commodities are sent to this country without due payment being made for them, what more desirable state of affairs could he wish for? If the foreign manufacturer is going to continue to send to us articles that we require, without asking or wishing for any payment, that seems to me to be a most desirable state of things. All that we have to do is to sit down, close our factories, and enjoy ourselves on the multitude of good things that are sent to us from abroad by the philanthropic foreign manufacturer.
Surely, the hon. Baronet can see that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, considerations of that kind reduce to nonsense the theory that, if you import articles into this country, you deprive people in this country of employment. If hon. Members opposite will re-read the admirable speech, in many ways, of the right hon. Gentleman two afternoons ago on the gold standard, they will see that some passages in it show that he still retains enough of his former beliefs to realise that the prosperity of other countries means, in the long run, prosperity for this country also. The hon. Baronet told the House what he and other Members of his party said on the platform during the last General Election, but, with all due respect to him and his colleagues, we are not really concerned with what they said, but we are concerned with what the head of the Government said. The Prime Minister laid it down perfectly clearly in this House that the only avenue by which industries would obtain protection in this Parliament—not only this year, but in this Parliament—would be through the machinery of the Safeguarding of Industries legislation, and, if I am not out of order, I want to recall the fact that another pledge was made by the Prime Minister with regard to the taxation of food. That pledge, as I tried to point out to the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues before the House rose for the Easter Recess, is already by way of being broken, and here is a second pledge on fiscal matters that is being broken The Prime Minister's
reputation for impeccability is being exploited to the breaking-point by his colleagues.
I now want to put one or two points to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Without going into any detail in regard to what has happened since these duties were taken off, I say that, even if the principles held by hon. Members opposite be admitted, even if one believes in the principles of Protection and in safeguarding industries by that method, these are the very last industries that ought to be selected for the purpose. All these industries have been prosperous since the duties were taken off. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd), who is not now in the House, talked about stimulating industry by giving it security. I make bold to say that there is no better example in our industrial history of the stimulating effect of competition upon industry than has been afforded by the motor car trade during the last year, and we on these benches, who believe that the protection now being given to that industry is illegitimate, ought to acknowledge fully the efforts that the motor car trade has made during the last year to meet competition and to make itself more efficient. There are other methods, of course, of helping the motor car industry apart from these protective duties, and I hope, before the discussion on the Budget comes to an end, to indicate to the right hon. Gentleman some of the ways in which he has missed his opportunities in that respect.
While admitting, however, that this particular industry has during these last few months made enormous progress, I still contend that there is nothing in its condition to justify these protective duties, even if it be admitted that protective duties in any circumstances are warranted; and it is not only the evidence of Free Traders that I would adduce in support of this contention. For instance, in November last, the "Morning Post," which I suppose the right hon. Gentleman now reads, in its account of the Motor Exhibition, said:
 To-day"—
that was last November—
 motoring has been brought within the close range of a public far wider than that to which its appeal has been made hitherto.

Sir H. CROFT: Hear, hear!

Major CRAWFURD: I am interested to hear the hon. Baronet's cheer. Let me point out that this has been chiefly secured since those duties were removed.

Sir H. CROFT: Two months.

Major CRAWFURD: The hon. Baronet and, I may remark in passing, others also who make interventions during the course of other people's speeches, are not very ready to answer arguments in support of those interventions. The hon. Baronet points out that November was only two months after these duties had been removed, but what the "Morning Post" said in November has become increasingly true ever since, and during the last eight or nine months motor cars have been increasingly brought within the range of people with more modest purses than those who used to be able to enjoy them. At any rate, the removal of these duties has been a large contributory cause of that effect. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who talked about stimulating industry by giving it security, that, in the Government's White Paper regarding the Safeguarding of Industries, it is stated that they require an industry, before it gets the protection of their proposals, to show that it is run with reasonable economy and efficiency. I venture to suggest that since the removal of these duties the motor-car industry has been run with more economy and more efficiencey than ever before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his first Budget statement, referred, I think, to these taxes as luxury taxes, or at any rate, if he did not so refer to them in his Budget statement, he referred to them in those terms when, on the 17th December, he was criticising the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden).

Mr. CHURCHILL: Mr. McKenna said that they were luxury taxes.

Major CRAWFURD: I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, and not with Mr. McKenna, but let me point cut that at the time when Mr. McKenna spoke they were much more essentially luxury taxes than they are now, because that was in the War period, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentle man the special considerations that applied then, so that his remark is really irrelevant to the point. The right hon.
Gentleman, last December, speaking of the removal of these duties, said that
It was a wanton act to deprive the State of that revenue… Here were duties which nobody objected to. Here were taxes on luxuries, here were taxes paid by the well-to-do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1924; col. 1158, Vol. 179.]

HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"

Major CRAWFURD: The right hon. Gentleman finds considerable support for those words. May I quote an authority which even the right hon. Gentleman himself will treat with some respect? We are sometimes told that we on these benches, in defending the principles of Free Trade, are doctrinaires, that we are out of date, that we are soaked in pedantry, that we are the utterers of shibboleths. If that be true, it is equally true that the arguments advanced by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are antiquated and out of date, because they are the very arguments that were advanced in 1860, in 1853, in 1846, in 1845, and in 1842—in each of the years when the great Free Trade Budgets were brought in.
I am going particularly to commend to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the words he used on the 17th December, the remarks made by the late Mr. Gladstone in introducing the last of his great Free Trade Budgets in 1860, because what he said then is particularly and peculiarly relevant to what is going on now. Mr. Gladstone was then making the last large series of reductions in the import duties in this country, and he quoted the remarks made to him by interested people, which were exactly the remarks that we hear, and have heard, in this present Session of Parliament. The very remark which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself made on the 17th December, Mr. Gladstone quoted as having been made to him. He pointed out that manufacturers and their friends came to him and said that these taxes were luxury taxes—he was referring in particular to some of the duties reduced under the Commercial Treaty with France; and he said, "Yes, these are luxury taxes. These are taxes paid by the well-to-do, but only because you keep the taxes on. Take the taxes off, and these articles will come within the reach of people who are less well-to-do." That is exactly what has happened with the
motor car industry in the case of the McKenna Duties.
There are only one or two other small points to which I desire to refer, but one in particular I wish to commend to the right hon. Gentleman. One day last week he made use of a phrase which was received with some resentment on the benches above the Gangway on this side of the House. He said people were qualifying to receive the dole. Does he not realise that what he is doing now is to teach other people to qualify for another dole? What is a protective duty but a dole to manufacturers, just as unemployment relief may be called a dole to unemployed men? Why then does the right hon. Gentleman object to unemployed or partially employed people qualifying to receive a dole? Because, he says, it has a bad effect on character. People who do not desire to work or who have not the ability to work are confirmed in their desire not to work, and are perhaps eventually deprived of the incentive to work because they can get something for nothing. It cannot be salvation to industry if it is damnation to the unemployed man. The right hon. Gentleman is doing to other people exactly what he was condemning the other night. It is not more than 18 months ago that the right hon. Gentleman, not then a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, appeared on a Liberal platform in support, of two Liberal candidates. I remember the meeting well, and the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman, because it was made on my behalf. I have not the slightest doubt that he will recall the meeting, because there were certain circumstances connected with his departure from it which made it somewhat unusual. Speaking for the Liberal party, in one of those dramatic phrases which he sometimes employs to the exclusion perhaps of more serious argument, he said, "We are threatened "— we, then being the Liberal party—" on one side by Moscow, and on the other by the ' Morning Post.' "Of those two menacing alternatives, as they appeared to him then, he has chosen the "Morning Post." We say that the offices of the" Morning Post" are half-way along the road to Moscow, and we propose for our part to fight the right hon. Gentleman's proposals at every phase and at every turn.

Mr. RHYS: In listening to the speeches which have been made on the other side of the House, I am reminded of the New Testament. We have all read how Paul describes the City of Ephesus, and how the inhabitants went about shouting, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." I cannot help feeling, when we are told what Gladstone said in 1863 or 1883 or whatever it may be, that we are looking back to the past and not looking to the future to see what are the new and more complicated questions that face us to-day. I should like to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on re-introducing the McKenna Duties. Some have greatness thrust upon them, some are born great, and some achieve greatness. I would not insult him by suggesting that he has had greatness thrust upon him, but I think we may say that perhaps he was born great, and is now about to crown his career by admitting that he was wrong before. When I say he was wrong before, I mean that he was right in his early days, but after an excursion to the enemy country he has come back to the right side. I welcome these tariffs, such as they are, because I fought the last Election, and the one before it, on the question of the Safeguarding of Industry. I did not make a single speech without putting right in the forefront of it the necessity for helping industries which require help. The most interesting part of the speeches which have been made on the other side is that not one single person, as far as I could make out, suggested that these duties ever did any harm. We have bad the old Free Trade and Protectionist arguments, but no one suggested that these duties did any harm. I represent a division on the outskirts of London, on the East side, and we are looking for great benefits accruing to us under these proposals. If it is of any interest to hon. Members opposite, one or two have told me how glad they are that these duties are being put back because we are looking for great benefits and we hope that large motor works will start as soon as they are put back. Therefore I most heartily welcome the proposal to restore the McKenna Duties because I feel it is the least we can do to help our unemployed, of whom there are any number in London, and I sincerely hope they will come into operation as soon as may be and that the Chancellor will find it necessary to take the action which he stated
to-day might have to be taken in order to stop dumping in the next two or three months. That is a very important point which should not be lost sight of, or we may find that the effect of his proposals will take longer in coming into operation than was expected. I am sure anyone who studies the question must come to the conclusion that they will be most effective.

Mr. BECKETT: The hon. Member who has just sat down suggested that from this side of the House criticism of these proposals comes only from those of us who have very fixed and antediluvian Free Trade principles, and that we do not suggest that they will do any particular harm to the industries concerned. I have no fixed Free Trade principles of any kind. If you can convince me that private enterprise will keep the enterprise once you protect it, I am quite willing to consider very carefully the case for protecting any industry. Sixteen months ago I visited Coventry, which at that time was a hotbed of unemployment. The "Morning Post." was coming out with scare headlines about the terrible ringleaders of the unemployed that Coventry was throwing up and the way Bolshevists and Bolshevist gold were exploiting the unemployed of Coventry, and they were marching on the guardians. Even, those hon. Members who are rather clogged by continually reading the Morning Post "will not believe that you can get up a scare of that sort, however much Bolshevist gold you spend, unless there are a large number of unemployed for that gold to be used among. That was the position under the McKenna Duties which the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rhys) is so very grateful to the prodigal son for restoring to them. In Coventry to-day there are hardly any unemployed. The percentage of unemployed per head of the population is one of the smallest in the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has appeared to resent the suggestion that this is a rich man's Budget. It is certainly a Budget that is in many instances directed at the middle class, and these are duties which are going to hit the 'middle class very hard. The small, light cars and motor cycles and side-cars which people of small means wish to get are the things
which are going to be principally hit and raised in price. If you go out into Palace Yard and look at the cars waiting outside the House, you will find very few whose price is materially affected by foreign competition. It is not the rich man whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has budgeted for who is going to be hit by this. This is not a luxury tax. It is a tax on what is becoming more and more a necessity for many small business people, for travellers, and for the smaller middle-class people.
Reference was made by an hon. Member opposite the other day to the fact that, although 33⅓ per cent. was taken off by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the prices of foreign cars imported into this country did not fall by the same figure. That is due to the fact that tyres, lamps, and in many cases actual component parts of the cars and motor cycles were already being made in this country and were not affected by the remission of the duties last year, and will not be affected in the slightest by their reimposition this year. The facts of the case are these, and the House has to face up to them whether they are palatable or not, that when private enterprise is protected, when it can sit back comfortably, charge high prices, and draw substantial profits, it is only too glad to be able to do so, and that is the complaint that many of us have against Protection. If you come to us and say "We have tried to revive industry, we are prepared to accept restriction of our profits, we are prepared to make concessions where our industries are over capitalised as well as scream and howl because the workers will not work an unreasonable number of hours a week," if you are prepared to come to us with proposals and to say that you are prepared to give something, as well as hitting at the under-dog all the time, I think you can expect to get your safeguarding proposals, as you choose to call them, considered much more favourably on this side of the House, for while you come and ask to be safeguarded and give us no guarantee that you will not allow the public to be fleeced as they were before the right hon. Gentleman took the duties off, and as they will be again when the right hon. Gentleman has had his way, if you will not give us any of these
guarantees, you may call it the safeguarding of industry, but I call it sending industry to sleep.
The result of the remission of these duties was to make the motor industry go in for mass production. It employed more and more labour and turned out cheaper cars. Those are good things. The cheaper the ultimate price of the goods, and the more workmen paid at a reasonable rate for making the goods, the better for the industry. Unlike many hon. Members opposite, the Chancellor knows very much better. He is deliberately sending Coventry and other centres of the country back to the state from which the last Chancellor rescued them, and he is doing it solely and simply in order to gratify the desire of Members of his own party who do not know any better, and who would, perhaps, resent his knowing better.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. BANKS: It seemed to me as I listened to the speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in particular to the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, that whereas in all these disputes about Free Trade and Protection we are constantly encountering the fallacy of post hoc, propter hoc, it was preeminently so in regard to his speech. He seemed to labour under what I believe to be a delusion, namely, that both the imposition and the removal of a tax operate immediately. By way of illustrating that, he compared certain figures relating to the motor industry for 1924 and for the subsequent period. Surely, when some protective duty is introduced the manufacturer of the particular articles to which it refers is encouraged to embark upon that business, to open a factory or to extend a factory, but it takes him some time before he reaps the advantage which that modicum of Protection gives him. When you take the tax off suddenly you no more stop the impetus which his business has received than a locomotive can be stopped in three or four yards.
In the constituency which I have the honour to represent there is that very wonderful organisation the locomotive works of the Great Western Railway Company. That is the principal source of employment in the constituency, and other industries there are unimportant
by comparison. There is one small industry which, although it does not employ more than 500 or 600 hands, affords, I submit with respect, a very clear illustration of the principles to which I have been alluding. The Garraud Engineering Works make a little clockwork mechanism, commonly known as the motor of a gramophone. I have been informed by the manager of those works that it was the introduction of the McKenna Duties which encouraged this firm to commence this class of trade in Swindon. [HON. MEMBERS: "During the War? "] After the imposition of the McKenna Duties and in consequence, so he tells me, of the imposition of the McKenna Duties, his firm were encouraged to embark upon this particular manufacture, and I think he is a witness whose evidence ought to be believed. Those engaged in a business probably know a great deal better than hon. Members opposite what induced them to embark upon it.
He tells me that it was the influence of these duties which enabled him, beginning in a very small way, first of all to get his foot into the home market, and when he had got his foot into the home market to be able, as he does, to export considerable quantities to the Dominions and abroad. I went over the factory, because I was much interested in this local illustration of the principle. There can be no question to a layman as to the enormous superiority, in solidity and workmanship, of the English article over the Swiss and German articles which he showed me, and which we compared. He was obliged to charge for the English article something like 14s., whereas the Swiss article, with the duty, came to about 10s. 6d. He found that his customers in this country were ready and willing to pay that difference between the price of the two articles in return both for the better workmanship and the more durable qualities which no doubt, in turn, were due to the fact that his workpeople were better paid and looked after than the worker in Germany or Switzerland.
If you took off the duties the effect would be that the Swiss price would drop from 10s. 6d. to 7s. 6d., so that his mechanism would cost twice as much as the Swiss article, and his customers were not prepared to pay that. He antici-
pated, with great trepidation, the removal of the duties, and this was one of those cases where every workman in the factory met and telegraphed to me on the occasion when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was discussing this matter in the House of Commons. They telegraphed to me a unanimous resolution imploring me to appeal to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep on these duties. Of the bona fides of that particular resolution I have no doubt whatever. When the last General Election supervened, I was cross-examined by my constituents as to why it was that the Garraud Engineering Works were still apparently going strongly ahead, that they had actually engaged more hands, and that they were working overtime. The answer was due to the cause which I have already indicated, that you do not stop a locomotive when it is going at full speed.
It is true that the works had as much work as they could do, that extra men had been taken on and that overtime was being worked, but it was in the execution of orders and contracts which had been obtained before the duties were taken off. The real test is whether since those duties were abandoned orders have been coming in from home and abroad as freely as before. The answer of the manager of these works is a distinct negative. With regard to future contracts, those who formerly dealt with him said that they no longer desired to do so, and persons who gave him orders before did not propose to repeat their orders now that they could buy the Swiss and German gramophone motors for half the price of the English article.
What conceivable harm can there be in the imposition of a duty upon such a thing as the mechanism of a, gramophone? What good there is seen in the case of this industry in my constituency of this little factory which employs 500 hands, all local people from Swindon. We are fortunate in having only something like 400 unemployed in the constituency. Therefore, the collapse of these particular works would double the unemployment in the constituency. No conceivable case has been made out against the imposition of these duties, whereas we have tangible evidence in favour of them from people whose interest it is to tell us the truth. Any
lawyer knows that the witness whose interest it is to tell the truth is the most reliable witness. There is substantial evidence that this industry was created, fostered and maintained simply and solely because of these duties to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite so strongly objects. These works, trifling as they are in comparison with the Great Western Railway works, afford an admirable illustration in practice and before one's eyes of the merits of these duties, and I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon having the courage to reintroduce them.

Mr. HARRIS: We have had a very interesting speech from the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down. The education of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now being completed. We are led to understand that these duties were put on merely in order to balance the Budget, but we have heard quite frankly from Member after Member that the duties are received with enthusiasm by hon. Members opposite because of their protective character. We have had a very honest and frank speech from one hon. Member opposite. He was under no delusion. He was enthusiastic about these duties, not because they were revenue duties—on the contrary, he hoped that they would not bring in any revenue, and that they would keep foreign cars out, thereby finding more employment in this country—but because they were protective. What the country will not be able to understand is the pretence that these duties have been reimposed purely for revenue. A duty of 33⅓ per cent. cannot by any pretence or any twisting be described as a revenue duty. It is meant to be protective. It was originally protective. It was put on for protective purposes by Mr. McKenna. He put on the duty for the purposes of the State during the War in order to save tonnage and to keep out the articles on which the duties were imposed.
If the motor industry requires protection, and if it is a sound policy to protect it, the right lines would be to bring it not under the Budget but to carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister and to refer the industry to the machinery of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. That machinery is in existence and in operation. We are led to understand that it
is already functioning in regard to one or two trades, notably the lace trade. It would have been fairer for the Prime Minister instead of making pretence of reimposing these duties for revenue purposes to use the machinery that is provided under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I object to these duties because I believe they are unfair and that they will unfairly handicap the use of what is becoming more and more a necessity for cheap and rapid transit.
When the bicycle industry, before the War, was threatened by competition, there was an outcry about the importation of cheap American bicycles, and a demand was made that there should be a tariff in order to save this dying industry. Better counsel prevailed, and Free Trade principles were adhered to, with the result that the American and German bicycle is almost unknown in this country. The British bicycle manufacturers were stimulated in their methods by the healthy atmosphere of Free Trade and they turned out the cheapest and most satisfactory bicycle in the world. The British bicycle, in spite of tariffs, is seen all over Europe and all over the world and is the most efficient and most satisfactory bicycle that can be produced. The manfacturers having to face competition with the world improved their methods and standardised their parts, with the results that we see to-day. We have had that process in regard to motor cars. We have seen it at work in regard to the Morris car. It was announced that the dropping of the McKenna Duties would mean disaster to those particulars works, but stimulated by the fear of competition from abroad the able and competent proprietors lowered their prices and improved their methods, and the result is that all over the country we see more Morris cars than ever before.
That is the object to be aimed at. We must make the motor car not an article of luxury for the privileged few, causing jealously and bad feeling and class consciousness, but an article so cheap that before long it will be as common as the bicycle, and as common as it is to-day in the United States of America. In America every workman, in places like Chicago, instead of travelling by motor omnibus or electric tram has his cheap Ford.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Mr. Churchill.]

Captain BENN: What is to be the course of the Debate to-morrow?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are not continuing to-night. We shall probably have to sit late to-morrow night. Tomorrow we shall begin with this topic, and go on until we have finished.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Fourth and subsequent Resolutions to be considered Tomorrow.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
 That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Brighouse, which was presented on the 9th April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
 That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Pinner Gas Company, which was presented on the 8th April and published, be approved.

Resolved,
 That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Yeadon and Guiseley Gaslight and Coke Company, which was presented on the 9th April and published, be approved."—[Sir Burton Chadwick.]

MONEYLENDERS BILL [Lords].

Ordered, That the Lords Message [29th April] relating to the appointment of a Committee to consider the Moneylenders Bill [Lords] be now considered.

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of Three Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Major Glyn, Mr. Spoor, and Mr. Wells nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

STATE TRADING.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: I beg to move,
 That, in the opinion of this House, it is detrimental alike to the progress of our trade and manufactures and to the interest of taxpayers and of wage-earners that the State should engage in industrial undertakings.
We have for some time past had propaganda in this country in favour of the principle of nationalisation of industry. The advocates of this idea rely mainly upon theory, and have no practical illustrations to offer us as to the advantage of the scheme which they suggest. I remember that in February, 1923, when we were discussing the question of unemployment, Members on the opposite side were very earnest in putting forward the idea that private enterprise was the sole cause of unemployment. I venture to say that that idea was incorrect, and that the position of this country, as the first commercial power in the world for a long time, thoroughly disproves the suggestion that private enterprise has failed. Under our present system we have a reputation which I consider has created the jealousy of every Power, because we have led in the commercial world for a very long time. That has been done entirely by individual enterprise, and not in any way as suggested by any communal effort.
As a proof of my assertion, may I remind the House that before the War we were able to maintain in this country, and keep generally in a position of contentment, a population of no fewer than 45,000,000, notwithstanding the fact that four-fifths of our food supply had to be imported from abroad. The War, of course, shattered our social conditions to some extent, but it did so throughout the world, and I submit that under our present system we have made a much quicker and a strongest recovery than any other nation in the world, although during that period we have been taxed more highly than any of the foreign nations. Despite the chaos resulting from the War and our high taxation, this country has shown a great deal more resilience in the matter of trade than any of our commercial competitors. It is said by advocates of nationalisation that this country under the present system does not take into consideration the interests of the worker. That statement is quite incorrect. Look at the
facts. In 1923 we spent in this country £338,000,000 on public health and welfare, as compared with £63,000,000 spent on the same services in 1911 and £23,000,000 spent on them in 1891. So, comparing 1891 with 1923, the cost of welfare services in this country has increased 15 times, and that has happened under the system which is condemned as being against the interests of the workers and the consumers.
May I also point that in this country we enjoy a greater individual freedom than is offered in any other country in the world. That is evidenced by the fact that to-day among our captains of industry 90 per cent. have risen from the bottom of the ladder. That shows that there is every opportunity for anyone who strives to reach the top of the ladder if he is industrious and makes up his mind to do it. The only check on freedom in this country is the coercion of those modern rules of trade unionism which prevent a man, who does not belong to the union, from getting any work. Every man has the right to work whether he belongs to a trade union or not. It is manifestly unfair that, because he does not belong to a trade union, a man should be deprived of employment and be unable to support his wife and family. As long as he observes the conditions laid down, and as long as he is prepared to work he has a right to employment. That is the only indication of any want of freedom in this country at the present time.
To come to the real point, it is contended by advocates of nationalisation that it would be in the interests of every man in the country if the nation acquired all the means of production, distribution and exchange. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ! "] My Friends say, "Hear, hear !" That would be the first step in the downfall of any Empire in the world. Look at what it would mean. In the first place, if you nationalise the means of production you will have to nationalise the land. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear "] From the" Hear hears "of hon. Members I have no doubt that that would meet with approval from the other side, but if you nationalise the land, you take a ruinous step, and you interfere with the prospects of every individual in this country. The landowner is held up by advocates of nationalisation as an object
of opprobrium. It is claimed that he has no right to possess land, because, it is said, "God gave the land to the people."
Hon. Members opposite who are championing the idea that the land belongs to the people forget what happened at their own Trade Union Congress a week or two ago. Their own members were then talking about confiscating the land, and one of their members, who had the courage to look at the position squarely in the face, told them that they must go slowly, and he reminded them that there were 4,500,000 co-operators in this country who are owners of land and he said, "If we are not careful we shall lose their votes, and have no chance of getting back to office." They saw the red light, and the necessity for caution. Is not a great part of the funds of trade unions, friendly societies, industrial societies, and the great co-operative societies, with their reserve of £68,000,000, invested in land? If you confiscate the land you will cut into the position of every man who has the courage to save any money. To confiscate the land would be the first step in the destroying of production. You would get no production at all.
I wonder whether hon. Members remember that two-thirds of the land has changed hands in the last 100 years. It has been bought by men who have found the money. The landowners are selling their large estates because the burden of taxation is too much for them to be able to retain the land. What is happening? The old squirearchy, who have been the mainstay of the countryside, are disappearing. If you go to some of the Yorkshire villages where large estates have been closed, you will find that the people are in great trouble because they have lost their best friends. The old landowner was the friend of everyone in the countryside. Much of the agricultural depression to-day is caused by the fact that the farmers who have been the tenants of good landlords have now in bad times no one upon whom to lean. Farmers have been acquiring their own holdings, but they were much better off as tenants than they are as their own landlords. An hon. Member who represented a Gloucestershire constituency two years ago boasted that he, his father and his grandfather, had been tenant
farmers all their lives, and he said that he would not consider for a moment becoming his own landlord, because the tenant who had a good landlord was much better off.
Go to any country village and you will find that that is the case to-day. The country landowner realised what a very small percentage on his investment could be made from lands. I doubt if many of them had 5 per cent. When men came and settled in a district and wanted cottages, the landlord was quite willing to build those cottages without any consideration of the economic rent. The cottages were probably let for 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week. The new purchasers of the land are not doing that; they are looking for a fair interest on their money. There was a striking illustration of that a few years ago when Lord Brassey sold his estate at Hythe, in Kent. He was receiving only about I per cent. on the investment. When the land taxation scheme came in he could not carry on any longer with his land and he put it into the market. What happened? Within a month or six weeks the new buyers of the land raised the rent of the cottages from the ls. and 1s. 6d. previously charged to 8s. 6d. and 10s. per week. Is that going to improve the conditions of the under-dog, of whom we heard just now? Of course it is not. II you destroy the social system on which we have built our success you are undercutting the life of the nation.
I have said that farmers are better off as tenants than as their own landlords. If the nation owned all the land, would the position be improved as regards production? Would agriculture be likely to make greater efforts or to obtain greater success in food production if the farmers were servants of the nation? Of course not. The Socialist proposal is to put all land under a sort of central land board, and to set up local agricultural committees for the control of all farm lands and for directing the methods by which the land should be cultivated. I am sure that if you interfere with the present system to that extent, if you deprive the farmer of his initiative of action, you will destroy production altogether. The farmer who has cultivated his land for years knows exactly what he can get out of that land, and he is far more capable of dealing with the position than any Committee which may
be set up in London. We had evidence of that in the time of the War. I was on Salisbury Plain. Gentlemen used to come down and give instructions as to how the land should be treated—gentlemen who had practically never seen more than a few acres of land in their lives before, and knew very little about it. The whole thing was a farce. If you are to carry on successfully, you must leave the work in the hands of men who understand the cultivation of the soil.
The Socialist idea as to control of the means of production would involve taking possession of all factories. If the factories were taken over, I wonder how many would be existing in four or five years' time? That is the point we have to consider. It is all very well to have theoretical ideas, but we have to come down to practical, bed-rock facts. In Russia the factories were taken over by the Soviet Government. The Russian Government was going to do without the old managers and without the men who understood the work of the factories. What happened? In a very short time those factories, instead of employing thousands of hands, were employing only hundreds, and the output was reduced to about 5 per cent. of the original output. The factories were being destroyed steadily because the machinery was put out of gear by inefficient control. Now, having discovered that national control of factories is not workable, they are putting in charge some of the old managers But these managers have not a free hand. There are being appointed as leaders in these factories representatives of the Soviet Government who have never understood the working of a factory in their lives, and the managers are controlled by them. The Russians will never succeed in that way. Had they left the factories in the hands of private people, Russia might have beer, in a very different state to-day from that in which it finds itself. The putting into practice of the theory of national ownership has been the ruin of the Russian people, and has thrown tens of thousands of people out of employment and sent them to a miserable death.
We are told that men would work very much better for the nation than for the private master. What was the evidence of that in the time of the War? The mines were taken over. Did the men work better? I remember September,
1916. I was on Salisbury Plain, and we were horrified to find the South Wales miners forgetting the fact that our gallant men in the trenches were unable to fire one big shell in return for 50 big shells fired by the Germans. Knowing that their comrades were in that danger, although their leaders prayed them to remain at work and to bring out the coal, and although the owners of the mines said, "Make any terms you like as long as you go on with your work," they were led by their shop leaders and came out on strike and jeopardised the lives of their friends. No question of national patriotism affected them in a time of that sort. They did not think about patriotism. Although one sympathises, as I do, with the miners to-day, I shall never forget their callousness and want of consideration for their comrades in the trenches in that strike of September, 1916. The whole idea that a workman would work for the nation rather than for the private owner does not boar a moment's consideration, because it will never occur.
The present legislation for the control of factories gives every consideration to the welfare of the men and women employed. Every consideration is given to healthy conditions; every consideration is given to safeguarding them from injury by machinery, and the regulations as to hours and so forth are in many respects quite satisfactory. At any rate they bear very favourable comparison with the conditions of a few years ago. I have asked the House to compare the conditions here with the conditions in Russia, and I say that the working men of England enjoy better conditions under private enterprise than could ever be achieved under national control.
Another point brought forward is that houses for the accommodation of workmen should belong to the State or to the municipalities. I cannot understand why during the late Government's period of office so much objection should have been raised to occupying owners. Why should not a man who has saved money become the owner of his house? Why should he be compelled to live in a house owned by the municipality or the State? To-day in this country men are waking up to the fact that it is desirable to be the owner of one's residence. That is shown by the fact that 658,000 houses are
being bought through the building societies of this country while the membership of these societies is about 850,000, apart from 500,000 depositors.
Then we have the question of small holdings. Small holdings to-day give accommodation for about 20,000 people, and I admit that many more small holdings are required, but the smallholder is much happier when he rents his holding from a private owner than he is when he rents it from a municipality. If hon. Members inquire in any town where the municipality is running a small-holdings scheme, they will find very severe regulations, a higher rent, no consideration shown to the individuals and the whole scheme under the management of a corporation which has neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be damned. The smallholders cannot go to a corporation as they would to a private owner and ask for consideration and for variations of tenure. Private enterprise in all these respects is much more satisfactory and advantageous than any national or municipal system of control.
The next point put forward is that distribution should be in the hands of the State. That would mean that all transport, including railways, and all shops would pass into the hands of the nation. We had experience of the national control of railways during the War and in 1919-1920. although fares were raised two and a-half times and freights on goods went up four and a-half times, the nation managed to lose £41,000,000 in a year by working the railways, and in 1920-21 the loss was £46,000,000. When the Colwyn Committee was set up to arrange for the handing back of the lines to the private companies, it was found necessary to pay £60,000,000 of national funds to settle the railway claims for maintenance. That was a rather expensive experiment, and to a large extent it destroyed the comfort which we formerly enjoyed in railway travelling. If the nation is to take over the shops one can imagine what would happen. It is very interesting to speculate on the possibilities of the situation if all the grocers' shops and all the tailors' shops were run by the nation. I suppose if the tailors' shops were nationally controlled there would be a fixed pattern of garment which we would all be required to wear, whatever might be our position in life. Hon. Members
opposte would no longer have the privilege of criticising their leaders for walking about wearing trousers creased in imitation of the fashions of the wicked bourgeoisie. They would all wear the standard pattern of clothing produced in the Government shops. I think the proposals for distribution by the nation falls to the ground without very much discussion.
Now we come to the question of exchange. The nationalisation of exchange would mean taking over all the banks. It is assumed by the advocates of nationalisation that all banks are owned and controlled by immensely wealthy individuals—by "bloated capitalists." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) who, although I do not agree with his political ideas, is a great authority on banking, and whose word on that subject may be taken as one of some authority, wrote a letter recently to the "Daily Telegraph." He quoted figures showing the numbers of shareholders in the five large banks, indicating that in those five banks there are 266,000 shareholders. So far from all these shareholders being very wealthy, the average holding worked out at £210 per shareholder. It is not the "bloated capitalists" who are finding the money to run the banks but the small investors, who put their money into the banks feeling that they have some security and that their money is in the hands of safe people, who know the details of finance. How could Government officials deal with complicated and intricate questions of finance? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Treasury?"] I am referring to delicate questions of commercial finance. If a business man wants to carry out a deal, if he sees a chance of securing large orders or an opportunity for starting a manufactory, he can go to his bank and secure the advance of large sums of money. If the bank were controlled by the nation, because of the system of red tape which must necessarily follow on such control, it would take him weeks and perhaps months to secure an answer to such a demand, with the result that his opportunity would be lost. No Government official would dare to take the long view in such matters which a banker in present circumstances would take. A Government official would not be entrusted with the power to act.
Such proposals would very likely have to come before this House before a bank could make an advance. Let me quote what is written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea:
Nationalisation may mean the transfer from control by directors who are actuated by commercial and financial principles only, to control either by politicians who would direct bank policy for political purposes, or by persons appointed by, but with no instructions from, the Government of the day. If it is to be a change to political direction, it might become corrupt and would be very dangerous.
I submit that the idea of taking over the banks by the nation is commercially unsound and, in the long run, would mean the paralysis of industry and the stoppage of progress. No man would be able to carry on a large export trade if he were hampered in the fashion I have indicated. It is the fact of his bank being behind him which enables the business man to carry through large transactions and find employment for thousands. National control either of production, distribution or exchange would not only be dangerous, but disastrous. It is all very well to put forward theoretical ideas and to throw dust in the eyes of people who have not much financial or commercial knowledge, but we must come down to mother earth in the end. We must judge by such example as there is, and the outstanding example to-day is Russia. There, all the ideas of those who are advocating the nationalisation of production, distribution, and exchange were put into effect. Every man who had capital was either murdered or expelled, every factory was seized, and people in this country lost several hundred thousand pounds invested in Russian enterprises. The whole system of finance was ruined.
A few of the leaders of the Soviet Council did certainly secure all the money. We never knew what became of it, but we know that when they took possession of the affairs of Russia there was stored in that country enough food to feed that enormous population for four or five years [Laughter.] I take your own statements that have been published. Your own party have published the statement. Within 12 months after the Soviet Government took charge, in order to raise money these reserves of food were disposed of, and within 12 months the Russian people were starving. We know that, as a result of Soviet control in that
country, 30,000,000 of people were either done to death, starved or perished for want of any support. Think of the number—two-thirds of the population of this country, and that under the most modern effort at national control of production, distribution and exchange. To-day they are realising that their theories, when put into practice, have failed, and they are trying to get the capitalists back. They are trying to get people who have money to trust them, but until they realise the fact that men who want to put out their money, which they have worked hard to earn, require some security which can be relied upon, they will never get the capital from any investors in any country in the world.
I want to give one or two examples of trading in our own Dominions. The Australian Commonwealth ran a line of steamers. It was started during the War by Mr. Hughes, the then Prime Minister of the Australian Commonwealth, to carry wheat from Australia to Europe. Thirty-eight passenger and cargo vessels were added to by ex-enemy vessels, and six new vessels were constructed. In 1923 difficulties arose, and, in order to avoid any political connection, these vessels were transferred to the Shipping Board. The accounts for working those ships up to 30th June, 1923, showed a total loss on operations of £2,645,000, although the value of the vessels, which were originally purchased for £12,706,000, was written down to £4,718,000. So although they depreciated the value of their ships by £8,000,000, they lost a further £2,500,000, and the total loss on the operating in that short period amounted to £10,500,000. They have now decided to sell their fleet, as the working of the Commonwealth Shipping Board will involve still more heavy losses if it is continued.
In Canada they started a Government merchant marine with a fleet of 60 vessels. The fifth annual report of this organisation was issued to 31st December, 1923, and it revealed a deficit on the year's working of 9,368,000 dollars, the total deficit for the period of the five years being 27,641,000 dollars. The figures for 1924, which were presented to the Canadian House of Commons the other day, are not yet available in this country, but they show a further deficit
of 8,799,000 dollars, which brings the total deficit up to beyond 36,000,000 dollars.
We make a few efforts in this country. There is an organisation for printing taken over by the State—

Mr. MacLAREN: From where did the hon. and gallant Member get those figures?

Sir A. HOLBROOK: I got them, as a matter of fact, from the Board of Trade.

Mr. MacLAREN: What year?

Sir A. HOLBROOK: The total loss in the case of Canada was up to December, 1923, and in the case of Australia up to June, 1923, the last figures available. We took over in this country, during the War time, the large printing works at Harrow. These works showed a big loss year after year, and they were still continued despite recommendations made for their closing. Other printing works have since been formed, and the loss disclosed on these works has never been, to my idea, satisfactorily explained. The last return showed a profit. It is rather remarkable that that profit is shown, for private tenders are not taken, so as to compare those figures with what might be the results under private enterprise, and unless you have some figures with which to compare, it is impossible to say whether or not the work has been carried out on economic lines. A Committee of Inquiry was started in 1923, and I recently asked when the Report was coming out, and was told that it is being prepared. We have had complaints about the very exorbitant prices charged for Government documents produced in these printing works, and it is rather remarkable that the increase in the prices should have been made at about the same time as the Government transferred the work from private firms to their own works. It makes one feel that there is something which is not disclosed in the figures. In connection with the Government printing works. I would point out that the profit and loss accounts show that no consideration is given to the payment of Income Tax that a private trader would have to meet, and no consideration is given to overhead charges that a private man would have to pay. It is just the same in connection with the State management of the liquor trade in Carlisle.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that two days ago the hon. and gallant
Member asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about these Harrow printing works, and that the reply he received was that the Financial Secretary had gone into the whole matter and was quite satisfied that the State printing works were showing a profit and were a big success?

Sir A. HOLBROOK: He did not say he had gone into the whole matter. He said that the printing works were showing a profit, and that is what I said, but if they allowed for Income Tax, Supertax, and all the expenses that a private trader would have to pay, where would the profit be? And it is most remarkable that the prices of all the Government documents have gone up since the Government took the work over. They have also taken over the road maps, which were carried on by private enterprise satisfactorily for a century, and they have taken over the maps and charts for the Navy. I say that it is not in the interests of the public that these matters should be taken over by the Government, because there is no check upon the expenditure. If a private individual is carrying on work and does not make a profit he has to close down his works, but he makes the loss. If the Government carry it on, and a loss is made, the taxpayers have to bear it. It does not fall upon the officials who are responsible, and I contend that this competitive trading should not be carried on by any Government Department, but should be left to private individuals.
Take one item which is in the full knowledge of hon. Members of this House—I mean the municipal tramways run by the London County Council, which is tantamount to Government control. They showed a loss last year of £680,000. Is that to the interest of the ratepayers and taxpayers? If that had been in the hands of private enterprise, they would either have had to close down or find some more economical method of working. The shareholders would not have permitted them to go on. There is another outstanding instance, and that is the Metropolitan Water Board. I remember, when those water companies were taken over by the Metropolitan Water Board, in the days when the Labour party were controlling the London County Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "When was that?"]— although the companies had for some
years been paying handsome dividends, a million was lost in the first year of their working, and to-day we are paying four and five times the price for our water supply. I admit the water supply is very good.

Mr. THURTLE: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us in which year the London County Council was under the control of the Labour party?

Sir A. HOLBROOK: When the London County Council was first formed, the Labour party had a majority. It was called the Progressive party. I am sorry I gave it the wrong title. They took over, at the same time, the steamboats on the Thames. I remember quite well it was a very pleasant trip to run down the Thames, but on one year of working they made such a big loss that they had to stop the boats altogether. These are instances of public control in this country. I would also call attention to food control during War time. That food control, in my judgment, is responsible for the high price of food to-day. It taught people how to combine. It taught the great companies how to combine and keep up prices. It was not all to the profit of the nation that there was control. I remember the purchase of bacon, on which this country lost about £8,000,000, which had to be found by the taxpayers. Then the nation thought it could embark a little further in farming enterprise, and one has only to look at the Auditor-General's Report a little time ago to see the loss incurred on that farming enterprise.
I feel that the whole advocacy for national control of industries is founded on false premises. I am perfectly sure we built up the great trade of our Empire by individual enterprise. Only by individual effort can any commercial venture hope to succeed. Directly there is any national or municipal control of an industry, that industry fails economically. The expenses go up, the employes exercise control over the public representatives, and they get higher wages. I would not reduce the wages, but I would insist upon a full return of work for the wages paid. That is what we want in this country. We want to break down the idea that private enterprise is inimical to the interests of the workers. Private enterprise has built up the great comer-
cial position of the British Empire, and once we give way to nationalising our industries, I say it is the first step to the downfall of the great Empire which we have built up.

Mr.H.WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Motion.
9.0. P.m.
If I may say so, the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) is in himself an outstanding example of the merits of individualism.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ! "] All I hope is, that I and those who cheer that sentiment, will be as brisk at his age as he is, and will have such a distinguished record of service for the country as he has. The Resolution is drawn in terms so wide, that one might almost discuss the whole philosophy of Government. There are two great principles which have been struggling in this world ever since man kind came into it—principles of order on the one hand, and liberty on the other. Now there is the doctrine of anarchy, which makes a great appeal to everyone, for everyone to do as he likes—no Government, no policemen, no laws, no House of Commons, even no Mr. Deputy Speaker—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not even a Member for Reading."]—not even a Member for Reading, although I believe that would be a disadvantage to Reading. On the other hand, there is the man who stands, without qualification, for the principle of order, for Socialism pushed to its logical conclusion. Between those principles, ever engaged in conflict, anarchism on the one hand, and State Socialism on the other, or call it liberty and order, whichever you please, you have a great many intermediate stages,and the middle of the picture, I suppose,is occupied by the Conservatives, who believe in the existence of a State, and that the State should have the right to interfere with individuals in the communal interest. There is nothing novel about that. The greatest leader of our party, Disraeli, believed in that doctrine, acted on that doctrine, and filled the Statute Book with examples of that doctrine. We believe—I think I am correct in saying—that it is right for the State to protect the community at large against enemies without and enemies within. That is the moral justification of your army, navy, air force, police service, and general system of justice.
We believe, equally, it is right that the conditions under which trading is carried on and manufacture is carried on should be regulated. In fact, we believe in the same principle that the Football Association applies to the game of football. It has a code of rules, referees and linesmen, but it does not provide that the Football Association or referees should take part in the game. Socialism, on the other hand, wants the referee to take part in the game on one side. That is where we part company. We part company where the State commences to be the trader, and we part company at that point for a great many reasons. The first reason is this: Before we make a change, we want to have some clear perception of what will replace that which we destroy. It seems to me that the crowd of split organisations linked together under the Socialist party of this country cannot give us much guidance. There are those who are members of the Labour party, and, therefore, nominally Socialists, who do not believe at all in Socialism. There are those who go to the full logical extreme of State Socialism, and would suppress entirely the liberty of the individual, as we understand it. From that doctrine, a doctrine to which I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) has contributed more than most people, we have a variety of reactions.
Before I describe those reactions, I should like to mention a personal experience which the mention of the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham brings to my mind. Many years ago I knew a lady. She was—naturally—a brilliant and an accomplished lady! Her father was an ardent Conservative. She a brilliant student at the London School of Economics. Under the influence of the right hon. Gentleman to whom I have just alluded, she became a Socialist. One day I was engaged in argument with her, and I asked her whether she really believed that everything should be run by the State. Her reply was: "Well, no, perhaps not everything." I said to her: "Then what, for example, would you exempt?" Her reply was: "Milliners' shops." Even her soul revolted from the idea of being compelled to wear a hat
designed by the State. Even she revolted from that degree of millinery standardisation, of that deprivation of real liberty. That lady to-day has reacted, and is now a Conservative.

Mr. B. SMITH: She will react more over the silk tax!

Mr.WILLIAMS: Some of those of whom I am speaking have the most divergent views. There are those who react from the tyranny of State Socialism and advocate Syndicalism. They want a system of society in which there are no heads, and in which property and the management of the whole of the industries is vested in those engaged in them. That, however, is a reaction which is to-day a little out of fashion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Co-partnership."] This is not the same as co-partnership, because it presupposes there shall be no State. That reaction came from Italy and from France. We have had another reaction, one which proceeds from the University of Oxford. It is called Guild Socialism. Guild Socialists realised that Syndicalism was hopeless, and they, therefore, wanted to have an amalgam of Syndicalism and State Socialism; but even that seems to have gone a little out of date, and has no supporters now.
But note the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves. We are facing the problem of those who denounce the existing system in favour of the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and have not this faintest idea of what they are going to put in its place. [Interruption.] It is sometimes an advantage to confine one's speech and one's interruptions to the subject matter under discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear,hear ! "] I like interruptions. They are a joy of life, and they do not make it more difficult to speak. They make it easier. On the other hand, they may lessen the value of debate if they are off the point. It seems to suggest that disordered mind which is characteristic of the Socialist.
Let us try to see whether all these things, of which State trading is merely a little symptom—the modified measure of State trading we have in this country —let us see where this thing is difficult and where it tends to fail. After all, even the 12 Apostles tried to have all things in common, and they did not
succeed very well. I think they had a better chance of succeeding than the members of the English Labour party. The moment, however, you pool the resources of a very large number of people, of a number of people so large that the relations of one individual to the total is an insignificant relation—the moment, I say, you get to that point the sense of responsibility commences to decline. Let me give a contrast between two systems of administration in operation in this country to-day, both under the same Act of Parliament. The National Insurance Act of 1911 established a system of health insurance and a system of unemployment insurance. The system of health insurance is managed by the Approved Societies; is, in effect, managed by small branches of those Approved Societies. In many cases the effective membership of an individual branch may be only 100 or 200 members, but all those individuals are possibly personally acquainted with one another. Each individual member is anxious not to put burdens upon his own friends and comrades. What is the word of pride you get from the ordinary member of such a society? He boasts of the wealth per head of his lodge, and boasts, in the colloquial phrase, that he possibly has never been "on the box." He rejoices, in fact, that he has never drawn benefit, but only contributed to it. That is the high moral basis you get with a small organisation, where each individual is under a full sense of responsibility.
I now come to the system of unemployment insurance where the whole of the fund is pooled, and where there are, I think. 11,500,000 of insured persons. Something over a million are drawing benefit to-day. The attitude of that million is: "Oh, it is a big fund, and my share is a small one, and the share of my friends and comrades is a small one." Such a one goes on taking out of the pool because he has not that sense of responsibility which the other man has. I am not blaming the individuals, foe not only they, but their representatives in Parliament feel much the same. There you have the difference in the sense of responsibility; a different moral sense in approaching the problem of health insurance and the problem of unemployment insurance, because, in the one case,
you have a small and localised fund, and in the other a pool of funds in which the contributors feel only a small sense of responsibility. We have all had the same experience of Government Departments, possibly as members, possibly as suppliants. We all know those who work in the Civil Service—and let me here pay a tribute to the English civil servant. There is no cleaner Civil Service in the world. There is no corruption in it. It is almost impossible to dream of corrupting an English—or, shall we say?—a British civil servant. I am not looking at the matter in that aspect. I am looking at the productive efficiency, if I may use the phrase, of those who work as civil servants. It is low through no fault of the individual, because when the self-same individuals retire at a fairly advanced age, many are men of outstanding ability who are at once snapped up for service in the commercial world. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh, oh! "] Yes, and at four times the salary they have previously had, and they do four times the amount of work! It is not the fault of the individuals. It is the fault of the soul-destroying system. I quite realise, however, that in nationalised movements of the sort, as in other industries, there are principles held which are common to most of us. We believe in a constitutional system. We may believe in other things as well. If we believe in the State regulating industry and affording protection to those needing it, then, obviously you are committed to the existence of large Government Departments, and large Civil Service staffs, and you must, therefore, accept the inefficiency which their employment in that direction results in because of the advantages you get in other directions. When, however, you get to the manufacturing departments of the State, take, say, the great arsenals, the men who work there do not work as well as some of the men do in the private establishments. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you been there? "] I have, and I saw enough to disgust me. Even in the hours of our greatest peril I saw people lounging about in a way they would never have lounged about in private works. Then, again, you find inefficiency in regard to the plant. I know many of the private firms might, with great advantage, modernise their plant,
but you do not find quite the inefficiency you find in Government-managed factories.

Mr. B.SMITH: Do not forget that you saw a Frenchman lay a brick once.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I saw a Frenchman lay a lot of bricks. May I add this: I have not long been a Member of this House, but on one occasion when I was listening to a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) he made a couple of statements which were slightly inaccurate. I corrected the first, and he accepted the correction. I sought to correct the second, and what he did was to read me a lecture on good manners in this House. In the short speech I have been making I have been interrupted by members of the Labour party about 10 times, as much as I have interrupted during the whole time I have been a Member of the House.

Mr. WIGNALL: You said you enjoyed it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I know I enjoy it, but I am suggesting that from the point of view of debating, and not my amusement, and I am not here for my amusement, but for your benefit, it might be an advantage if we kept a little more to the subject in the interruptions. Above all, we have the problem of marketing. Nearly every service which is nationalised or municipalised, or which people have sought in the past to nationalise or municipalise, has been a service of a monopoly character, where the problem of marketing did not arise. When you come to the great industries upon which the permanent prosperity of this country must depend, the problem of marketing becomes acute. I am certain that no State Department can act with the prompt decision which is necessary if you are to be successful in marketing, in marketing your products overseas. What are the limiting conditions under which your Civil Service works? Every decision a civil servant comes to is taken with one eye on the job, and one eye on the House of Commons and the possibility of criticism in this House, the possibility that every action he takes may be searchingly inquired into, the possibility that any decision he may make, or any risk he
may take, may result in a question here reflecting upon his Department. There is, therefore, a lack of freedom, merely because the House of Commons does its duty as it ought to do; and I am perfectly satisfied that in a Government Department you could not get that rapidity of decision which is necessary if we are to compete successfully for world trade.
It may be that those who desire State trading and its general extension desire to go further than State trading in this country. They may go to the extent of desiring international collectivism. There are many who do so; certainly all those who describe themselves as Communists are not Communists with regard to their own country alone, they are international Communists. If we are to go that far, we shall be up against huge problems. It is not necessarily the case that a system of Communism or Socialism means the exact equalising of incomes, but it certainly proposes the cutting down of some incomes and the raising of others—whether it would result in that is a different matter—but if you are going to internationalise you have not only got to bring in your English workers but your countless millions of Chinamen and of Indians whose annual production and whose annual income is tiny compared with the income of the Britsh workingman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? "] Because they produce less in the day than the British working-man produces.

Mr. B. SMITH: We have discovered something at last.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is perfectly obvious, it is common knowledge. There is only one reason why the standard of the living of the Englishman is higher than that of the Chinaman, and that is that he is more successful as a productive agent. There is no other reason. If we are to go in for international Communism, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) are not going to share out merely with the constituents of the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Erskine), or of the hon. Member for the City (Sir T. Bowater), they will have to do their sharing out and their equalising with the whole of the inhabitants of China and India, who have a low standard of living. If hon. Members opposite believe in internationalism, they have got to go very
much further than they have gone at present, and accept results very much more unpleasant than they ever preach to the proletariat when they spend their Sundays in propaganda instead of recreating their minds, as we of the Conservative party do.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House" to the word "that "in line 3, and to insert instead thereof the words
 experience shows that it is in the interest of national economy and also in the interests of the public both as producers, consumers, and taxpayers.
Hon. Members will see that my intention is to give a direct negative to the point of view that has been put by the two hon. Members who opened the Debate. I do not know whether to start with the Mover or the Seconder of the Motion, because both of them have provided opportunities to be butchered to make a Labour party holiday and I want to confine my remarks within short limits, as there are a fair number of gladiators to come into the arena. The hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) shows that he is a very regular reader of the newspapers of his own political complexion, and that he amasses most of his facts for oratorical purposes from those newspapers, without taking the trouble to check the statements and the theories propounded. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) is a little in advance of him, because he has obviously read some of the pamphlets on this subject. When they get on to the 6d. books, then we will look forward to the contributions they make in Debate on this subject. I want to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke for one statement he made. I will take care that it is conveyed to the organised workers of this country at the very earliest opportunity, because it will relieve their minds of a matter that has been causing them considerable anxiety since this Government took office. He said, "I do not object to wages being paid." We were getting just a little worried about it. Some of the speeches of his colleagues were leading us to imagine that one of the aims and objects of the party opposite and its Government was to get the workers down to nothing at all. Their conclusion is that that is the only way in which we can hope to com-
pete successfully with the workers of other countries. Well, I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member does not want us to get down to nothing. Probably it would stop before it reached zero. The working classes of this country do not mean to be brought down to nothing.
In his opening remarks, I think what is called the exordium, where a certain amount of latitude is allowed, as is allowed in the peroration also—and I am not wanting to hold him down to this very strictly—he did say that this nation has built up a reputation that causes jealousy among all other nations, and it has been done entirely by private enterprise without any aid from the community. That is a pretty sweeping claim. The hon. Member for Reading does not agree with that. He would claim that perhaps the British Navy had done something to help private enterprise to build up the reputation that Great Britain has amongst the nations. Does the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke deny that the recognised institutions of the State—the Army, the Navy, the Law Courts, the police force and other institutions—have had some part in establishing Britain's reputation throughout the world? Silence seems to give on this occasion dissent. He does not seem even to agree that the community has rendered any service there. Really what we are asked to consider to-night as a definition of the Resolution tabled is not general State organisation, and not diatribes about Russia and Soviet rule. We are asked to deal with State trading, which I assume means State trading or community trading under existing Governments and Governments of the past. I believed to-night the whole theory of Socialism was to be under discussion and I was not expecting under the guidance of this particular Resolution to have to start to defend the Russian workers in the very brave and very successful struggle they have made to establish working-class freedom in their country. I am not going to follow the hon. and gallant Member in the line of argument that he has suggested. The hon. Member for Reading suggested the reason why State enterprise cannot succeed and that private enterprise will succeed is because, when the individual gets submerged in a big wide organisation his sense of responsibility has gone. [An HON. MEMBER:
" Diminished !"] Considerably diminished. He drew a parallel between National Health Insurance and unemployed insurance, where because the approved societies are a comparatively small group, and the national unemployment insurance is nation-wide in its scope, the men in the national health insurance took a personal pride in the work, whereas the men in the unemployed insurance, as suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were mainly dole-robbers and swindlers [Interruption.] I think that suggestion, has been made again and again. I think I am justified in giving to that suggestion the strongest definition I can. I may be wrong, I may be super-sensitive in these matters, but that was the suggestion that struck upon my ear. I hope the Chancellor will have an opportunity in this House of proving to me that the suggestion was not that the people on the unemployed register were in the main people who were frauds [Interruption.] I merely state that that is the suggestion that drifts across to me from the Chancellor and not the suggestion of the hon. Member for Reading to-night [An HON. MEMBER: "Hitting below the belt! "] Well, if I am hitting below the belt, I am hitting people who are able to be in this House to answer me, if it he true.
But it is between a large-scale organisation and a small-scale organisation that there is said to be a difference in the sense of responsibility. The Mover's remarks did not merely condemn State enterprise. They certainly do not condemn community enterprise. They condemn practically a big proportion of our coal trade and steel trade, and banking above all. He condemns all those. With regard to the sense of irresponsibility arising from large-scale organisations in the community rather than from private enterprise, I, in my working life, have been in the service of the education authorities, and I have been in municipal authorities. I had one bitter experience in private enterprise in which I worked the longest hours with the least security, and had the most disagreeable task. I have worked in schools owned by the community and for a short period in the Post Office owned by the community, and the corporation and I have worked in gaol, so that I can say that I have a fair degree
of inside knowledge. In none of these various organisations did I find among any of the persons engaged any sense of irresponsibility, or lack of regard either for human material or any other material. I have taught with a head master who was so anxious for the economy of the community, and looked most rigidly after the materials at his disposal that when asked for a supply of chalk he would serve out to his staff of intelligent certificated teachers, most of them university undergraduates, one piece at a time, and if they went back before the end of the week for a second one he would want to know what had been done with the first one. [An HON. MEMBER: "Was he a Scotsman?"] Yes, he was a Scotsman. The heads of all our great public departments in the City of Glasgow work as hard and have as much responsibility as the servants of any big private undertakings. The one big difference between public ownership and private enterprise does not lie in the size of the enterprise. You can organise your industry any size you please. Economists are not agreed as to what industries are best suited for large scale organisation or small scale organisation, and the community will have to experiment in every branch of industry as to whether large or small scale, or even the individual scale, is the most economical way of carrying on an industry. It seems to me that for public services like gas, tramways, electricity or water a fairly large town or a portion of a county is a suitable unit for organisation.
I hear that Nottingham has been hit very heavily in regard to its trade by foreign competition, and the State has been asked to do something to help the privately-owned lace industry of Nottingham. That is the state of private enterprise in Nottingham according to to-day's newspaper. Nottingham has earned large profits on its gas, electricity and water undertakings, and presumably the employes in those various works have been regularly employed at fixed hours of labour, with regular holidays, and probably they will have pensions where they retire, whereas in the case of the lace factories, those engaged in private enterprise in this trade in Nottingham come here time after time and say, "We cannot run our show." The Nottingham Corporation has never asked for a subsidy, but private enterprise
insists that the State should grant to the lace trade a subsidy, or something else, in order to buttress them up.
I have in my hands a terrible lot of stuff to prove how stupid the position is which has been taken up by hon. Members opposite, and I could prove this by the theries put forward by their own statesmen. Even Disraeli went a good deal further in these matters than his successors. Disraeli saw that the Suez Canal was an important thing and private enterprise would not step in there because there was no immediate profit in it. Disraeli saw that sometimes national welfare was a thing quite apart from profit to private individuals, and consequently he went for these things in a foresighted way. It is the function of the State to prevent private enterprise from being as vicious and unscrupulous as it would be if there was not a State, a judge or a policeman on the spot to keep them in order. The hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke spoke of the amount of money spent on public health by the State.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: I said public welfare.

Mr.MAXTON: That expenditure was necessitated because private enterprise had produced such a state of things that it tended to ill-health in the community. The difference between the outlook of the Socialists and private enterprise is not whether it should be on a large or a small scale, or whether you should employ wise or stupid managers or have an intelligent, honest board of directors or a stupid and dishonest board. These are things which are often hurled against Socialism by hon. Members opposite. I am prepared to admit to anybody that if the State chooses a board of directors to run a particular thing who are incompetent or dishonest, or selects an incompetent or dishonest manager to conduct that industry, such an enterprise is very likely to be a failure.
When making appointments of this kind in the public service we should endeavour to get a man for the job who knew something about it. Public men should be as conscientious and intelligent in the exercise of their public duty as if they were looking after their own interests. I do not believe that in private enterprise to-day, although they are
compelled to look after profit and interest, that the best people in private enterprise are worrying much about the public welfare because their efforts are largely strangling national interests and the national life of the common people by their ownership of land, factories and one thing and another. The essential difference between the Socialist outlook and the outlook of hon. Gentlemen opposite is not how you are going to organise, or what sort of boarda of directors you are going to set up, or what sort of managers you are going to appoint, or what sort of wages you are going to pay, or what sort of hours are going to be worked; the essential difference is that the community shall take the responsibility of owning and directing the whole of the nation's wealth, production and distribution. Interest, rent and profit to private individuals would be cut out. In the Socialist community everyone would be expected to work for their living, and not to live on unearned increment of one kind and another.

Mr. E. ALEXANDER: That is where it would finish. You would not get it.

Mr. MAXTON: I would point out, as has been pointed out even by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that we have already a good proportion of people in this country who are not working for profit, or rent, or interest, but for wages or salaries, and hon. Members opposite have always been prepared to speak highly of the work of those who are in the public service, whether in the Civil Service, or the Army, or the Navy. They are always prepared to talk about the high standard of honour and capacity shown by these men. We do not think it will finish there. If you can get high public service from a section of the community, you can get it from the whole. I am perfectly certain that the average member of the working classes would as soon work for his corporation, or his nation, or his county council, or his local education authority, as he would for a big profit-making concern such as J. and P. Coats, or Beardmore's, or some of these other big corporations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or himself ! "] There is no opportunity of working for oneself in these days.
That is the essential difference between hon. Gentlemen opposite and those who sit on these benches. We believe we can prove that, even under the political control of hon. Members opposite, publicly-owned State Departments have proved of great value to this community. I know that many gibe at their own Post Office—they gibe at the telephone service, they gibe at the letter service. I never cease, however, to be amazed at the perfection and efficiency of the whole Post Office service. In my whole lifetime I have never paid more than twopence for the conveyance of a letter inside the boundaries of this country, and I have never had a letter go astray. I have never had a telegram unduly delayed, and I have never had to wait more than three minutes for a telephone call—[Laughter]—although, to the big proportion of telephone operators throughout the country, I am not a personality, but merely a voice. If I have to wait three minutes, I am so used to getting quicker service that I begin to get irritated; and, judging by the tone of voice that I sometimes hear in the telephone boxes from hon. Members opposite, they have got used to it also, and so they get irritated if they are kept waiting so long.
The service of the Post Office is run by paid salaried men from top to bottom, without any individual who is engaged in the work—even the Postmaster General expecting to make personal gain by superior efficiency or superior effort. It is a perfect running machine, which gives better conditions to all the employés engaged in its service than any corresponding concern—in the carrying trade, for instance—that is run by private enterprise. The men have regularity of employment, reasonable hours, and a wage that they can rely on from week to week and from year to year. They can count on their holidays and on their old age being provided for, and we, the members of the community, get a regular service that in many respects cannot be improved upon.
The same applies to our educational service in Scotland. In Scotland the educational service is run by the community. There are only a very few private enterprisers engaged in the distribution of education, and I am prepared to contend here that the private-enterprise schools in Scotland are dearer and less
efficient than are the schools under public control. Again you have the employes—teachers, janitors, clerks, and all other sections—in regular employment, all knowing that their salary is going to be there every month, that they are going to have their holidays, that their old age will be provided for, that they will be provided for in case of sickness; and there is no more efficient and self-sacrificing body of people employed by any form of private enterprise in the whole community. I know the educational service of Scotland from A to Z, and I know that every child in Scotland between the ages of five and fourteen can rely upon getting its daily supply of education. Indeed, if they miss a day there is someone coming up to the door to ask why Johnny, or Jeanie, or Mary has not had that previous day's supply of education. They can miss their supply of daily bread, which is controlled by private enterprise, but I think we can claim that in this branch of public activity we have the producer—the worker—in secure employment under reasonable conditions, and that we have the consumer—the child—getting its article conveyed to it regularly every day without fail.
Some hon. Members seem to resent my paying compliments to the Governments of their parties, but, even under the Governments of the past, for which we on these benches were not, in the main, responsible, and which were not anxious to make these State enterprises successful—for there has always been a large proportion of people who, like the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Member for Reading, believe that the State should not go into anything out of which a profit could be made, anything that was really intrinsically useful—I am prepared to say that, industry for industry, those that are run by the community to-day, not under Socialism, which does not enter into any one of them, but merely as State enterprises, show that men can serve the community as faithfully, as efficiently, and as well as men ever can serve a private employer working with profit as their sole dole.

Mr. MACKINDER: I beg to second the Amendment.
Like my hon. Friend who has moved it, I was very much struck with the lack of argument on the part of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. I confidently expected, when I was
asked to second the Amendment, that at all events we should have something to reply to in the shape of statements that experiments in State control had been failures; but I must confess that I listened in vain for a single instance which can be verified where an experiment in State control has been proved a failure. The Mover of the Resolution instanced Russia, but even hon. Members opposite must know that the opportunity for Russia to prove itself a success has been very largely limited by the adventurers who have gone forth into Russia from the West of Europe. I was greatly struck by the statement that we rely upon theories and have no practical proposals to offer. May I give one or two instances where State control has been proved a success. The statement that I make can be verified very easily because the experiments are still in operation. In Queensland the Government own sawmills and run them in the interests of the State. They cut down the State forests, and the wood which is sawn in their mills is being used in the erection of State houses for State employes. I suggest that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) might investigate that in stance of State control. In the same State there are coal mines which are supplying the State railways with State coal, making a saving to the State of 157,000 a year. I suggest that the hon. Member might investigate that. There are metallurgical works in Queensland employing 1,500 men in the works and mines. The works were derelict. They could not be managed profitably by private enterprise, but the State took them over and they are now a success and are making a profit. Not many years ago in Queensland the farmers wanted to erect sugar plant, but they had not the money. They asked the State to provide the factories, in other words, to establish the industry, and then when the farmers could afford it they would buy it from them. That happened. The State made a success of it and then let the farmers have the buildings, because that was their original promise.
I was hoping the Mover or Seconder of the Resolution would tell us some of the fairy stories about the adventures of Queensland into the realms of municipal meat, because if they had done so I was going to quote some figures, but enough for me to say, with regard to that parti-
cular adventure in State control, from November, 1915 to 1922, the State of Queensland in their 66 shops sold 50,000 tons of beef and 4,000 tons of mutton. They aimed at an average profit of ¼d. per lb., and they reduced the price of meat as against private retailers by at least 2d. a lb. and made a net profit of £140,000. I make a present to hon. Members of these examples of State control in the hope that when this hardy annual again comes up for its watering they will be able to refute some of the arguments we have brought forward.

Mr.HOMAN: From where does the hon.Member get his information?

Mr.MACKINDER: From the State papers of the Queensland Government and from an address delivered by the President within the precincts of this noble building.

Mr. HOMAN: At what date?

10.0 P.M.

Mr. MACKINDER: It is quite easy to get. A few weeks ago I had the privilege of listening to the Prime Minister of Western Australia, who delivered to hon. Members who desired to hear him a very illuminating address, not as to what the Primrose League people say is happening in Australia. He told us that the State of Western Australia produce in their own works agricultural machinery and implements. They make good machines and they make a profit by making them. In Western Australia, again, the Government have their own saw mills, they have their own Government brickworks and, more important still, they have a State. Shipping Service, which must not be confused with the Common wealth Line, of three ships doing an important coasting trade, and they are responsible for bringing the price of cattle down from £14 to £6 per head, by means of carrying cattle from where they are produced to where they are wanted, and they are ordering two new steamers this year.
The Seconder of the Resolution said that State enterprise was all right where it was a monopoly, but when they got to the great industries that was where State enterprise failed. I wish the hon. Member was here while I make him a small presentation, because in 1914, as some hon. Members may remember, a
war commenced in Europe, and it was necessary, in order to win the war, that our soldiers should be clad with good, warm clothes. In my native city of Bradford, where we make the finest cloth in the world, was commenced the most interesting and important scheme in State control that was ever accomplished. I would recommend hon. Members to read the book, which is in the Library, called "Experiments in State Control." It is a very good and a very important book, and if hon. Members will analyse it I can guarantee that their knowledge will be greatly extended. In the preface the very clever author wrote these words:
 I believe that to wage war effectually involves replacing private enterprise by collective organisation.
That is rather an important statement by a man—a civil servant—who went right through the whole gamut of State control during the War, and the great honour was conferred upon him of asking him to write this book. It is considered a standard work. Some of the experiments that we have made in the West Riding of Yorkshire during State control show us that what can be done successfully during a war ought to be done during peace much more successfully. [Laughter.] I cannot understand the laughter of hon. Members. May I repeat that it is equally important that if we can do these things sucessfully during war, it is equally important that we should do them successfully during peace? What were the facts? Everybody who knows anything about the War knows that Tommy never was clothed in such warm clothing as during the War. Everybody knows that Tommy never had such fine boots as during the War. We can prove that the fact of the War being waged so successfully was because of our excursions into State enterprise.

Mr. PERRING: Who made the boots? Private employers.

Mr. MACKINDER: I am trying to prove that all these things were done by the State. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] I ought to know. I spent four years in doing it.

Mr. PERRING: You said that all these things were done by the State. I say they were not.

Mr. MACKINDER: Most of these things were done by the State, aided by public-spirited business men, who came in to help the State to function as a result of their experience and knowledge. I want to combat the argument that the Socialists would have civil servants who did not understand industry directing these industries. We should try to get people who understand the industries to direct them. That is the Socialist point of view. We bought during the War millions of bales of wool, and we made millions of yards of cloth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who did? "] We did. The Nation, the State, under State control, and State direction. [HON. MEMBERS: "Private firms.] May I make a little excursion and say what private enterprise did? When the Kitchener Army was first started, I remember the military authorities looking over the warehouses of this country in order to buy cloth with which to clothe the soldiers. Private enterprise said, "Yes. You can have it, at a price." The State decided that they were not going to be plundered by the prices that were asked. The result was that the State nationalised the wool trade. The State set private employers to work for them on commision with the result that the State was producing cloth cheaper at the end of 1918 than they were buying it when the Kitchener Army was being clothed. That is a fair example of what the State could do, and it was not a small amount that was produced.
We produced during the first three years of the War an average of nearly 12,000,000 blankets a year. We produced of khaki cloth 313,000,000 yards. We produced 276,000,000 yards of flannel and 104,000,000 pains of socks. These figures are not phantoms. These are the results of experiments in State control, which we carried out in the wool trade. Most hon. Members on this side have worked under private enterprise. I went into private enterprise when I was 10 years old, at ls. 9d. a week, in a spinning mill. If I was not there at six o'clock in the morning I was not allowed to begin work until eight, and 6d. was stopped from my wages. I lost three-quarters the first week, and it was a good job that I did not lose four, or I might have owed something. All my life has ben spent in private enterprise. I am not ashamed of that; but I do suggest seriously that private enter-
prise, and the result of private enterprise, with its 1,250,000 unemployed. with no hope of providing work for the unemployed, has utterly failed.
There is nothing to offer to the unemployed under private enterprise, except the hope that some day we shall get the trade of the world again, and now a proposal is made under private enterprise to put a tax on a new industry, so that we shall have more unemployed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Put a tax on talk ! "] If it was put on talk, perhaps the hon. Member who interrupted me would escape altogether. Talk is merely an expression of various points of view. If points of view have not to be expressed there would be no opportunity for hon. Members below the Gangway on this side and opposite to convert us to the point of view of the Primrose League. The policy of the present system and of the Primrose League, as expressed in a mast illuminating pamphlet, as a cure for unemployment, is not State enterprise, but an extension of private enterprise. We must work longer, work harder, and for less wages. State enterprise, as shown by the instances which we have given, is a better example than that, and it is with the utmost pleasure that I second the Amendment.

Mr. CLYNES: I have never believed in these Debates, bingeing on the Motion of a private Member, that speakers from the Front Bench should take up very much time, because the time more appropriately belongs to others. The hon. and gallant Member who brought forward this Motion, I say it with all respect, opened by dealing, not with the subject of the Motion but with the larger aspects of Socialism. As has been pointed out, there is a great difference between what we understand to be State trading and Socialism. It is not unfair to say of the hon. and gallant Member that his greatest difficulty is that of defending the existing system rather than that of attacking Socialism as he has presented it. Socialism is in no way to blame for things as they are, and indeed some of us support it as a cure in the hope of altering things as they are.
In his opening observations the hon. and gallant Gentleman treated us to a glowing description of the uniform good fortune, health, wealth and happiness of
the people of this country. I think that he did overlook the facts, for the truth is that it is not since the end of the War that there has been much misery and unemployment and distress and low wages. It is 20 years since Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, who became the Prime Minister eventually, said that 13,000,000 of the people of this country were living upon the verge of starvation, and our troubles since the War, though they have been deepened and aggravated by the War and what has followed it, can be traced to economic laws and conditions that have been not the result of design, plan or method, but have just grown up in the ordinary way of happenings in the last two or three centuries, and in those centuries we lost the land.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman now informs the House that it is our purpose to confiscate the land. No official voice, resolution, proposal or decision of the Labour party can be brought before this Rouse declaring that we do intend to confiscate the land. It has been confiscated. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told us some pitiful stories of a large number of the wealthier squirearchy of the country, and of other landowners, who have become so poor and found ownership of land so difficult that they have had to sell it. That is true, and it is no more than the transference of the power to retain land from one set of hands to another. But if the land has been sold it has been bought, and it is in the possession of people who have as great means as, if not greater than, those who had it in the past. I regretted very much to hear what my hon. and gallant Friend said about the miners. I think that he cast an entirely undeserved aspersion upon them when he said that during the War these men in the most unpatriotic way, regardless of national interests, struck work, and declined to go on with their ordinary service.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: I referred only to one set of miners—those of South Wales.

Mr. CLYNES: What I have to say in answer will apply to South Wales. The real test which we are asked to consider is the patriotism of the miners. I suppose that even among miners, as among landowners, there were a few men who did not seek to serve their country, but, in
the mass, the miners were the first of the men to walk out of the pits into the trenches in such large numbers that, at an early stage of the War, the first cause of our feeling the coal shortage was the absence of the miners from coal production, and compulsorily they had to be brought back from France to go into the mines again. The men who served so well in the War, and who suffer so much for their country in time of peace, are, above all others, the men who do not deserve taunts of this kind in a Debate of this sort.
Nor is the hon. and gallant Gentleman correct in his assumption that we on this side arc opposed to individual workmen owning their own houses. We are glad, indeed, if individual workmen are able to accumulate means whereby they can buy their houses and feel that sense of personal security and independence which comes from the possession of one's own home. The view that we take with regard to the activities of municipal authorities and the need for communities to build houses so as to let them at rents to those who are not able to buy them, is not inconsistent with the view that individual workmen should own their houses if they can possibly acquire them. The truth is that in all these matters there can be no fundamental industrial or economic change unless and until there is a disposition to accept change and a desire to make change successful when it, is made. To take an instance of some feeble attempt to run an enterprise by a little community of persons and to press its inevitable failure, whether in this country or in some other land, proves nothing except the failure of a little body of people to do certain things. I suppose that there is a greater number of failures standing to the name of private enterprise, to those who have taken up commercial undertakings and have tried to establish and run businesses. Many such men have been in this House and have left it. I suppose that there is a larger number of failures of that kind standing to the name of private endeavour than stands to the name of those little communities to which reference has been made.
My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was quite right in his argument that there are people who will leave to local bodies or to the State any sort of
enterprise that offers not the slightest prospect of profit. Yes, they can run parks, recreation grounds, libraries and other such non remunerative or nonprofit-making enterprises, but they must not touch anything out of which the community itself may reap some reward. We had to-day an answer to a question about a piece of land which the State owns in Regent Street, and the facts and the answer revealed the receipt of a considerable profit to the State as a result of the ownership of that land. Is it wrong that this Imperial Parliament should own a piece of Regent Street? If it be not wrong, upon what grounds can it be said that it is wrong that the community, the municipality or the State, should acquire considerable plots of land in any other part of the country? Indeed, every day is there increasing acquirement of land on the part of local authorities. I know some of the most Tory municipal bodies where now hundreds and hundreds of acres are being added to the future landed property of these municipal bodies, with a prospect, and, I believe, with a confident hope, that much of the income to be derived from the future use of that land will enormously lessen the burden of rates which weighs upon them to-day. Well we know that, because of the private ownership of land in the past and now, town development has been delayed, improvements have been made impossible, and heavy exactions have been common enough where some private interest has stood in the way.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Motion, and the Seconder, exhibited almost fantastic conception of what Socialism intends or proposes to do. The failure even of, say, an effort at shipping enterprise in the Dominions, does not prove anything more than that private interests and classes, and personal interests, very often combine to prevent the success of a State venture of that sort. That is a matter of common knowledge and experience. Nor could I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's allusion to Russia. I recall the terms in which he described the Russian people's state of wretchedness, of famine, of servility, and of suffering—piling horror upon horror as to the terrible condition in which those people were now living, because of the economic change they had produced. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman, or some
one else in this House, explain how it is that the people of Russia persist in retaining these conditions? Can anyone believe that even the Russians are so foolish as to nurse the state of famine, wretchedness, personal servility, and economic degradation from which it is said they are suffering. I refuse to believe that if the conditions were as described, the Russian people would be so foolish as to persist in retaining that state of affairs.
Finally, I think my hon. and gallant Friend made a very unwarranted reflection on the Ministry of Food which we had in this country from the earlier part of 1917 until near the end of 1919. I will briefly refer to this matter, if I may do so, leaving aside any personal consideration. The achievements of the Food Ministry prevented the famine which was at our doors in the middle of 1917, a famine which, had it been allowed to travel and to deepen, might indeed have produced an earlier and very different end to the War, from the end which it reached. Wars are no longer contests between armies in the field. Even if they were, armies have to be fed. The civilian population must keep the soldiers and sailors in an efficient state, and I suppose the soldier is the greatest individual consumer in a country in time of war. All civilians must be kept busy in order to keep the soldier fit for the discharge of his military duties. That was done at trifling cost to the country. My hon. and gallant Friend said the Food Ministry taught the business people how to organise to keep up prices. That is a very serious reflection upon the business people. It is not an argument against Socialism, but an argument for Socialism. It is a very potent argument in favour of more effective interference by the State on behalf of the people, with the object of preventing the exploitation of the people by interested parties who use association for that purpose.
The case is against those who resist change. I recall the fact that 20 years ago in this House there were only five Members who could call themselves Labour Members. In 20 years' time that number has grown to 150. In like manner, there has been a growth of opinion in the direction of a willingness to remodel our economic order. Indeed, paradoxical as it may sound, the only thing that is permanent is changed and we are almost uncon-
sciously accepting and showing a willingness and even a readiness to agree to alterations which formerly were stubbornly resisted. I recall a Labour Member rising at our request some years ago, to propose a Motion in favour of pensions for widows. He was almost laughed out of court; at any rate, he was heavily beaten in the Division Lobbies. So it is the pioneer goes on with his preaching and his advocacy until his defeats are turned into victories. Viewing the change that has occurred here and in public opinion in 20 years' time, we have no doubt of the greater change that will be witnessed 20 years from now.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I come to speak on this subject a little unprepared. Reading the Resolution in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook), and listening to the speeches which have been made since, I have been a little surprised that, of all the subjects coming under that Resolution, the one subject which, in my view, has been a distinct success for Government trading has not been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Office came to the House prepared to meet criticism of State trading in Carlisle, but not a word on that subject has been mentioned. After having my dinner, I came into the House to find that all the subjects dealt. with concern the Department with which I have the honour to be associated, and so I have been taking a few rough notes of the speeches that have been made, and I will endeavour to say something on them. I did not, moreover, have the privilege of hearing the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Motion. I only had the opportunity of coming in during the latter part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Beading (Mr. H. Williams), and I heard the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I am not surprised that, led in that way by the speeches of two gentlemen of such academic distinction, the Debate should develop into an academic discussion of Socialism, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) in his speech just now, which might have been my speech with a few deletions, showed that there is a great deal of
difference between State trading and Socialism, or, perhaps I would more correctly describe him as saying that State trading is not necessarily all that is contained in the doctrine of Socialism.
I will not attempt to develop this tremendous and interesting controversy between the views that I hold and the views that are held by hon. Members opposite on the main issue of Socialism, which has been so widely discussed. The right hon. Gentleman said, very rightly, that people sitting on the Front Bench ought not to take up too much of the time of the House, and I am cordially with him in that sentiment. He went on to say that there have been more failures in private enterprises than there have been in public enterprises. Of course, there have; there has been more enterprise in private enterprise than there has been in public enterprise. I will just refer to some of the remarks that were made by other speakers and in particular to something that was said by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder). He complains of the criticism levelled by people who hold the opinions that I hold at those who hold the opinions that he holds on this subject, and he says quite confidently that he knows of no instance of State trading failure. Well, I do, and I believe it was referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke.

Mr. MACKINDER: What I said was that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion had given us no instance of State trading failure, which is rather different.

Sir B. CHADWICK: Then I will give the hon. Member some very marked instances of extraordinary and disastrous failure of State trading. I will recall to his mind the result of the trading of the United States Government in shipowning. I would not dare to mention how many million of dollars have been lost every year in trading alone by the merchant fleet of America, not to take into account the depreciation in value of their property. It is the same story precisely in the case of the Canadian State ships and the Australian State ships, although the hon. Member opposite was misguided enough to talk about the State trading of some three or four steamers belonging to the Australian Government, which, he said, are trading at a profit. It is quite possible that those steamers of which he
spoke are merely steamers running upon Government coastal trade, and are largely supported by the mail subsidy of the Australian Government. It is not comparable. It is not a fair example of State trading enterprise to put against the great international enterprises that are entered into by the shipowners of this country and other countries.
That is only one State effort in trading. I could mention many failures of State trading which we have not heard mentioned by speakers on this side. We need not go further than some of our tramway enterprises, of which the results have been really most serious to the ratepayers of many municipalities in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where? "] London, for instance. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not true."] I may be wrong about London, but I do know of other places in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Glasgow? "] I do not know anything about Glasgow, but there are places which I do know where the tramways have been disastrous to the ratepayers. I was very interested when, in the middle of some petulant remarks about private enterprise in this country, an hon. Member swelled with pride as he spoke of Bradford cloth as the finest cloth in the world, and that cloth, so far as I know, is produced entirely by private enterprise. He went on to compare —and I think this is misleading when we discuss this question of State trading and national interference with private enter prise—the war conditions with the peace conditions. He said that vast numbers were clothed comfortably and effectively during the War, and why did we not do the same thing in other branches of trade? [An HON. MEMBER "Why not? "] Another hon. Member supports him by saying, "Why not?" This, to my mind, is why not. There is no comparison between legitimate trading and the prices that we paid in emergencies, and during the War, for clothes, boots, food, and every other conceivable kind of commodity which had to be purchased in prosecution of the War.

Mr. MACKINDER: We made a profit of £66,000,000.

Sir B. CHADWICK: As between War expenditure and legitimate trading, and expenditure in times of peace, there is no comparison. I will not say much more
except to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). He spoke of his experience in work under public control, a very wide experience. He spoke of the anxiety for the public purse evinced by everybody engaged in public work. He spoke of the concern of those engaged to do their duty well. He referred to the fact that he had never to wait more than three minutes for a telephone call, and he said, when questioned, that in his own district he was not a personality, but a voice. I congratulate him on that. I knew that I had to follow him, but. I was able to sit in my room downstairs, and able to tell, because his resonant voice had stopped, that it was time I was in the House. On this question he has produced nothing but negative reasons either in favour of State trading or in favour of that Socialism into which the Debate has drifted. I have given instances as to where State trading has been proved to be bad and unprofitable, and I have not yet heard in this Debate anything definite, concrete, useful, helpful, or practical in favour of what has been advanced on the other side. I do not know that I have anything more to say. I have endeavoured to answer criticisms, and I have endeavoured to support my hon. and gallant Friend in the Motion he has moved and to resist the arguments made by the other side.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Some years ago the present. Chancellor of the Exchequer made a farewell speech at the Ministry of Munitions, and in the course of it he complimented the officials who had been working under him on their extreme efficiency, and said the way in which the Department had been handled throughout the whole of its existence almost made him a State Socialist. In the discussion this evening I have failed to hear any serious argument, backed up by facts and figures, from the opponents of State enterprise, except, perhaps, the statements made on the subject of shipping by the last speaker. With regard to his illustrations about shipping, I would like to point out that during the period when the conditions of that particular industry in the Dominions could be used as an argument against State enterprise the shipping people of this country were crying out about the terrible conditions for shipping.
To-day, also, the shipping industry is in a bad way unquestionably through precisely the same economic and worldwide conditions which affected the State enterprises which have been referred to. Why not consider the question from a broader point of view than merely that of profit and loss? The failure of a public enterprise is not necessarily, from the ordinary profit and loss point of view, an argument against State enter prise or Socialism. What happens with regard to the trams, for instance? It is perfectly true that from a profit and loss point of view the trams in London do not pay, but from the standpoint of income and expenditure they do, and pay the people of London handsomely. The reason why they appear not to pay is because what would be called capital in a private firm is called debt in public enterprise. That applies to a large number of undertakings throughout the country in regard to which similar arguments are used. With regard to the question of shipping in this country, I would draw the attention of the last speaker to the Report of the Select Cornmitttee on National Expenditure in December, 1919. That Report was presented to the House in the flicking terms:
 After careful and lengthy inquiry your Committee is of opinion that the work of the Ministry of Shipping was performed with remarkable efficiency.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made a speech in this House which I will take the liberty of quoting with regard to the manufacture of munitions of war, under State enterprise, for the purpose of prosecuting the War. He said:
 You do not get economy by abusing Government Departments and Government officials, and by abusing those volunteers who have given their time to Government work. And I am bound to say this: they have all done well. There has been a great attack upon them.
I should like to point out that that attack came all the time from people who supported private enterprise and made a very good thing indeed out of the War. Those were the people who attacked the Ministry of Munitions and the Food Ministry, and exposed their lack of
patriotism in so doing. I will continue my quotation:
 There has been a great attack upon them, as if they had been extravagant, especially the business men, without whose assistance the War could not have been won.
Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went on to say:
 Shells, machine guns, guns, rifles. The 18-pounder when the Ministry was started cost 22s. 6d. a shell. A system of costing and investigation was introduced, and national factories were set up which checked the price, and a shell for which the War Office, at the time the Ministry was formed, paid 22s. 6d. was reduced to 12s.
That is an example of State enterprise.
 And when you had 85,000,000 shells that saved £35,000,000. There was a reduction in the prices of all other shells and there was a reduction in the Lewis guns. When we took them in hand they cost £165 and we reduced them to £35 each. There was a saving of a good many millions there and through the costing system and the checking of the national factories we set up before the end of the War there was a saving of £440,000,000.
That is the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs with regard to the question of munitions, and I could of course go on quoting from that speech and many others on the same subject, with precisely the same purpose. With regard to the question of State trading in Queensland my hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment has dealt with that sufficiently, but I would like to point out that the last item shows that in Queensland the net profit on butchers' shops, hotels, and produce agencies has been £86,000. The main justification for the argument of these enterprises was that the cost of commodities was controlled, and was excessive before, and that when the State entered into the business it ran them as well as private enterprise and maintained prices at a reasonable level. That is the statement of the Commissioners for Queensland.
Something has been said about the question of telephones. It was suggested some time ago that the taking over of the telephones by the State would be disadvantageous and that the service was a thoroughly had and inefficient one. That statement never was true, and the only colour to it was that before it was taken
over the whole system was allowed to deteriorate to the greatest degree in order to get the best, advantage in the transfer. If there is one illustration of the State Telephone Service which can be shown to be thoroughly efficient it is the State Telephone Service of Sweden. There, call boxes in private houses, according to a Swedish Conservative newspaper, are as plentiful as gas meters are in London. I heard the same statement made about the inefficiency of the New York telephones. But the New York telephones were not State-owned, and it suited the stunt newspapers to work up an agitation on the subject of the telephones in London and this country. Then, of course, they were not prepared to realise that in New York the State telephones are not a public service, although they were admitted by the same newspapers to be worse managed than the telephones of London.
Take the municipal enterprises of this country. Mr. William Davies, the Borough Treasurer of Preston, gave a, list of over 44 towns which had handed over in relief of rates the sum of £1,387,607 out of the profits on municipal undertakings. I refer to this matter not because I regard this question from a profit-making point of view. Personally I am a Socialist, and I believe in production for the use of the people and not for profit. I also realise as a member of a municipal authority that it is hardly a practical thing, even if it were true, that municipal enterprises are failures, to expect enterprises of a public character run by people opposed to private enterprise to be a success. This is the case in my constituency with regard to electrical undertakings, because the majority of the Council are opposed entirely to the principle of municipal enterprise, but in spite of that there is a handsome profit upon electrical production and distribution.
As a believer in production for use and not profit, I think we have to consider

the question of production and distribution entirely from the point of view of national advantage. How much profit do you make out of Westminster Bridge, or the tunnel underneath the Thames, and public services of that kind? You do not make any profit out of them at all, and no one would be stupid enough to consider them from the point of view as to whether a commercial profit had been made out of them. Supposing the tramways service of London was communised, and nobody was charged any fares for travelling on them. I am not saying that that would be a good or a desirable thing, but the cost would be precisely the same and the public service would be precisely the same, but you would not show a profit and loss balance sheet, and you would not have ticket collectors and jumpers as would be the case under private enterprise. You would not have to pay tolls on the highroads, because all these things are a public service and you cannot judge them from the point of view of profit or loss.

The only standard you can adopt is that of efficiency, and taking into account all the difficulties and the conditions of the transition period, State and public enterprise is not a failure but a success. I took the trouble to make an analysis of the financial account of all municipal enterprises of this country contained in the Municipal Year Book last year, and I found that there were only two concerns in the country where the expenditure was more than the receipts. It is perfectly true that the balance sheet in many cases showed a loss simply because the debt to the community was spread over a period of years with regard to the application of the capital account, and that is the only difference.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 118.

Division No. 83.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Bethell, A.
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)


Albery, Irving James
Betterton, Henry B.
Buckingham, Sir H.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Bullock, Captain M.


Applin, Colonel R. v. K.
Blundell, F. N.
Burney, Lieut.Com. Charles D.


Ashmead Bartlett, E.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briscoe, Richard George
Campbell, E. T.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brooke, Brigadier General c. R. I.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Preston, William


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holland, Sir Arthur
Radford, E. A.


Christie, J. A.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Raine, W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Homan, C. W. J.
Ramsden, E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Clayton, G. C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
 Remer, J. R.


Cockerill, Brigadier General G. K.
Hudson, Capt. A.U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Couper, J. B.
Hunter Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Mldl'n& P'bl's)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Salmon, Major I.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jacob, A. E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Joynson Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Savery, S. S.


Ellis, R. G.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston s. M.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Locker Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Smith, R.W. (Abord'n & Kino'dine,C.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Loder, J. de V.
Smithers, Waldron


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lougher, L.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Luce, Major Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Fenby, T. D.
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Ford, P. J.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Forestier Walker, L.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Forrest, W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H.


Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Gadle, Lieut. Colonel Anthony
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Makins, Brigadier General E.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Gates, Percy
Manningham Buller, Sir Mervyn
Templeton, W. P.


Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton
Margesson, Capt. D.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Gee, Captain R.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, S.)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Merriman, F. B.
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark Lanark)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston on Hull)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wells, S. R.


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wheler, Major Granville C. H.


Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
White, Lieut. Colonel G. Dairymple


Grant, J. A.
Morrison Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Williams, Com. C.(Devon, Torquay)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Murchison, C. K.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E.)
Nail, Lieut. Colonel Sir Joseph
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Gretton, Colonel John
Nelson, Sir Frank
Windsor Clive, Lieut. Colonel George


Grotrian, H. Brent
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Womersley, W. J.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hammersley, S. S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D.T


Hawke, John Anthony
Pennefather, Sir John


Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Lieut. Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Perring, William George
Colonel Sir A. Holbrook and Mr.


Heneage, Lieut. Colonel Arthur P.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Herbert Williams.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Greenall, T.
MacLaren, Andrew


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.


Ammon, Charles George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Groves, T.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Barnes, A.
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Barr, J.
Guest, J.(York, Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, G. H.(Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hardie, George D.
Naylor, T. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Oliver, George Harold


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Palln, John Henry


Bromley, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick Lawrence, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton le Spring)


Clowes, S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kelly, W. T.
Rose, Frank H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Day, Colonel Harry
Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Dennison, R.
Lansbury, George
Scurr, John


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lawson, John James
Sexton, James


Gillett, George M.
Lee, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gosling, Harry
Lowth, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Mackinder, W.
Smillie, Robert


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Varley, Frank B.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Snell, Harry
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Windsor, Walter


Stamford, T. W.
Watts Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wright, W.


Stephen, Campbell
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Taylor, R. A.
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thurtle, E.
Wignall, James
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Tinker, John Joseph
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Warne.


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. LANSBURY: rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.